The Archbishop Viganò Archive:

January 1, 2021

Dr. Steve Bannon Interview: Great Awakening & Great Rest

The following are Archbishop Viganò's responses to questions presented to him by Dr. Steve Bannon of "War Room" regarding the Great Awakening and the Great Reset.

Dr. Steve Bannon: Now that the Vatican has renewed its insidious secret agreement with China, a deal which you have repeatedly condemned as promoted by Bergoglio with the assistance of McCarrick, what can the “children of light” of the Great Awakening concretely do to undermine this unholy alliance with this brutal Communist regime?

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò:

The dictatorship of the Chinese Communist Party is allied to the global deep state, on the one hand so that together they can attain the goals that they have in common, on the other hand because the plans for the Great Reset are an opportunity to increase the economic power of China in the world, beginning with the invasion of national markets.

At the same time that it pursues this project in its foreign policy, China is pursuing a domestic plan to restore the Maoist tyranny, which requires the cancellation of religions (primarily the Catholic religion), replacing them with a religion of the State which defnitely has many elements in common with the universal religion desired by globalist ideology, whose spiritual leader is Bergoglio.

The complicity of Bergoglio’s deep church in this infernal project has deprived Chinese Catholics of the indefectible defense that the Papacy had always been for them.

Up until the papacy of Benedict XVI, the papacy had not made any agreements with the Beijing dictatorship, and the Roman Pontif retained the exclusive right to appoint bishops and govern dioceses.

I recall that even at the time of the Bill Clinton administration during the 1990’s, former Cardinal McCarrick was the point of contact between the deep churchand the American deep state, carrying out political missions in China on behalf of the US administration.

And the suspicions that the resignation of Benedict XVI involved China are quite strong and coherent with the picture that has been emerging in recent months.

Thus we fnd ourselves faced with an infamous betrayal of the mission of the Church of Christ, carried out by her highest leaders in open confict with those members of the Chinese Catholic underground hierarchy who have remained faithful to Our Lord and to His Church.

My afectioned thoughts and prayers are with them and with Cardinal Zen, an eminent confessor of the faith, whom Bergoglio recently shamefully refused to receive.

1 We believers must act on the spiritual level by fervent prayer, asking God to give special protection to the Church in China, and also by continually denouncing the aberrations carried out by the Chinese regime.

This action must be accompanied by a work of raising awareness within governments and international institutions that have not been compromised by the Chinese communist dictatorship, so that the violations of human rights and the attacks on the freedom of the Catholic Church in China may be denounced and punished with sanctions and strong diplomatic pressure.

And this is the line that President Trump is pursuing with decisive courage.

Beijing’s complicity with political and religious elements that are involved in murky operations of speculation and corruption must likewise be exposed.

These proft-driven dealings constitute a very grave act of treason by politicians and public ofcials against their nation and also a grave betrayal of the Church by the men who lead her.

I also think that in some cases this betrayal is not only carried out by individuals but also by the institutions themselves, as in the case of the European Union, which is currently fnalizing a commercial agreement with China despite its systematic violation of human rights and its violent repression of dissent.

It would be an irreparable disaster if Joe Biden, who is heavily suspected of being complicit with the Chinese dictatorship, would be designated as President of the United States.

Dr. Bannon: You have been very confdent that God desires a Trump victory in order to defeat the forces of evil inherent in the globalists’ Great Reset. What would you say to convince the naysayers who are ambivalent to the idea that this is a momentous battle between the children of light and the children of darkness?

Abp. Viganò: I simply consider who Trump’s adversary is and his numerous ties to China, the deep state, and the advocates of globalist ideology. I think of his intention to condemn us all to wear masks, as he has candidly admitted. I think of the fact that, incontestably, he is only a puppet in the hands of the elite, who are ready to remove him as soon they decide to replace him with Kamala Harris. Beyond the political alignments, we must further understand that – above all in a complex situation like the present one – it is essential that the victory of the one who is elected President must be guaranteed in its absolute legal legitimacy, avoiding any suspicion of fraud and taking note of the overwhelming evidence of irregularities that has emerged in several states. A President who is simply proclaimed as such by the mainstream media afliated with the deep state would be deprived of all legitimacy and would expose the nation to dangerous foreign interference, as has already been shown to have happened in the current election.

Dr. Bannon: You seem to suggest that the Trump Administration could be instrumental in

2 helping to return the Church to a pre-Francis Catholicism. How does the Trump Administration accomplish that, and how can American Catholics work to save the world from this globalist ‘reset’? Abp. Viganò: Bergoglio’s subservience to the globalist agenda is obvious, as well as his active support for the election of Joe Biden. In the same way, Bergoglio’s hostility to Trump and his repeated attacks against the President are evident.

It is clear that Bergoglio considers Trump as his principal adversary, the obstacle that needs to be removed, so that the Great Reset can be put in motion.

Thus on the one hand we have the Trump administration and the traditional values that it holds in common with those of Catholics; on the other hand we have the deep state of the self-styled Catholic Joe Biden, who is subservient to the globalist ideology and its perverse, anti-human, antichristic, infernal agenda.

In order to put an end to the deep church and restore the Catholic Church, the extent of the involvement of the leaders of the Church with the Masonic-globalist project will have to be revealed: the nature of the corruption and crimes that these men have carried out, thereby making themselves vulnerable to blackmail, just as happens in a similar way in the political feld to members of the deep state, beginning with Biden himself.

Thus it is to be hoped that any proof of such crimes that is in the possession of the Secret Services would be brought to light, especially in relation to the true motives that led to the resignation of Benedict XVI and the conspiracies underlying the election of Bergoglio, thereby permitting the expulsion of the mercenaries who have seized control of the Church.

American Catholics still have time to denounce this global subversion and stop the establishment of the New Order: let them think about what sort of future they want for the coming generations, and of the destruction of society.

Let them think about the responsibility that they have before God, their children, and their nation: as Catholics, as fathers and mothers of their families, and as patriots.

Dr. Bannon: Against all odds, average Americans are fghting to expose the massive and coordinated theft of our election: what advice would you give to our recalcitrant politicians about what is at stake for our nation and the world if we submit to this theft? Abp. Viganò: The Truth can be denied by the majority for a certain amount of time, or by some people forever, but it can never be hidden from everyone forever.

This is the lesson of History, which has inexorably revealed the great crimes of the past and those who perpetrated them.

Thus I invite politicians, beyond their political loyalties, to become champions of the Truth, to defend it as an indispensable treasure which alone can guarantee the credibility of institutions and the authority of the people’s representatives, in accord with the mandate they have received, the oath they have sworn to serve their country, and their moral responsibility before God.

3 Each one of us has a role that Providence has entrusted to us, and which it would be culpable to shrink from.

If the United States misses this opportunity, now, it will be wiped out from History. If it allows the idea to spread among the masses that the electoral choice of the citizens – the frst expression of democracy – can be manipulated and thwarted, it will be complicit in the fraud, and will certainly deserve the execration of the entire world, which looks to America as a nation which has fought for and defended its freedom.

Dr. Bannon: In your letter to the President on October 25, the Solemnity of Christ the King, you spoke of the eforts of the deep state as “the fnal assault of the children of darkness.” There is a concerted efort by the globalists and their media partners to conceal and obscure the true tyrannical agenda implicit in the Great Reset, by calling it a wild conspiracy theory. What would you say to the skeptics who blissfully ignore the signs and plan to submit humanity to the domination of the global elites?

Abp. Viganò: The plan of the Great Reset makes use of the mainstream media as an indispensable ally: the media corporations are almost all actively part of the deep state and know that the power that will be guaranteed to them in the future depends exclusively on their slavish adherence to its agenda. Labeling those who denounce the existence of a conspiracy as “conspiracy theorists” confrms, if anything, that this conspiracy exists, and that its authors are very upset at having been found out and reported to public opinion.

And yet they themselves have said it: Nothing will be the same again.

And also: Build Back Better, in an efort to make us believe that the radical changes they want to impose have been made necessary by a pandemic, by climate change, and by technological progress.

Years ago, those who spoke of the New World Order were called conspiracy theorists.

Today, all of the world’s leaders, including Bergoglio, speak with impunity about the New World Order, describing it exactly in the terms that were identifed by the so-called conspiracy theorists.

It is enough to read the globalists’ declarations to understand that the conspiracy exists and that they pride themselves on being its architects, to the point of admitting the need for a pandemic in order to reach their objectives of social engineering.

To the skeptics I ask: if the models that are proposed to us today are so terrible, what will our children be able to expect when the elite will have succeeded in taking total control over the nations?

Families without father and mother, polyamory, sodomy, children who can change their sex, the cancellation of Religion and the imposition of an infernal cult, abortion and euthanasia, the abolition of private property, a health dictatorship, a perpetual pandemic.

4 Is this the world that we want, that you want for yourselves, your children, and your family and friends?

We must all become aware of how much the proponents of the New World Order and the Great Reset hate the inalienable values of our Greco-Christian civilization, such as Religion, the family, respect for life and the inviolable rights of the human person, and national sovereignty. Dr. Bannon: You have repeatedly warned that the ‘deep state’ and ‘deep church’ have colluded to plot in various ways to overthrow Benedict as well as President Trump. Besides Theodore McCarrick, who else is behind this infernal alliance, and how do Catholics undermine and expose it?

Abp. Viganò:

It is apparent that McCarrick acted on behalf of the deep state and the deep church, but he certainly did not do it alone. All of his activity suggests a very efcient organizational structure composed of people whom McCarrick had promoted and covered by other accomplices.

The events that led to the resignation of Benedict XVI still need to be clarifed, but one of the members of the deep church, the deceased Cardinal Danneels admitted that he was a part of the so-called Saint Gallen Mafa, which essentially worked to bring about the “springtime of the Church” which John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s chief of staf, wrote about in his emails published by Wikileaks.

Thus there is a group of conspirators who have worked and still work in the heart of the Church for the interests of the elite.

Most of them are identifable, but the most dangerous are those who do not expose themselves, those whom the newspaper never mentions.

They will not hesitate to force Bergoglio to resign also, just like Ratzinger, if he does not obey their orders.

They would like to transform the Vatican into a retirement home for popes emeriti, demolishing the papacy and securing power: exactly the same as what happens in the deep state, where, as I have already said, Biden is the equivalent of Bergoglio.

In order to bring down the deep state and the deep church, three things are essential:

1) frst of all, becoming aware of what globalism’s plan is, and to what extent it is instrumental to the establishment of the kingdom of the Antichrist, since it shares its principles, means, and ends; 2) secondly, frmly denouncing this infernal plan and asking the Shepherds of the Church – and also the laity – to defend her, breaking their complicit silence: God will demand of them an account for their desertion; 3) fnally, it is necessary to pray, asking the Lord to grant each one of us the strength to resist – resistite fortes in fde [“resist strong in the faith”] Saint Peter warns us – against the ideological tyranny that is daily imposed on us not only by the media but also by the cardinals and bishops who are under Bergoglio’s thumb.

5 4) If we can prove ourselves strong in facing this trial; if we know how to hold ourselves anchored to the rock of the Church without allowing ourselves to be seduced by false christs and false prophets, the Lord will permit us to see – at least for now – the defeat of the assault of the children of darkness against God and men.

If out of fear or complicity we follow the prince of this world, denying our Baptismal promises, we will be condemned with him to inexorable defeat and eternal damnation.

I tremble for those who do not realize the responsibility that they have before God for the souls that He has entrusted to them.

But to those who fght courageously to defend the rights of God, the Nation, and the Family, the Lord assures his protection.

He has placed His Most Holy Mother at our side, the Queen of Victories and the Help of Christians.

We invoke Her faithfully during these difcult days, confdently certain of Her intervention. • Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Former Apostolic Nuncio in the United States of America

Original Source: Inside the Vatican

______

December 18, 2020 A Den of Thieves

In the past few days, the latest news is that Bergoglio is dedicating his time to making a television series called Sharing the Wisdom of Time, produced by Netfix, which yesterday published a post on Twitter that summarizes its ideological point of reference: Praise Satan. It goes without saying that this multinational corporation is involved in the spread of immorality and vice, including the sexual exploitation of minors.

Similarly, in the past few days the Holy See has signed an agreement with the UN to promote sustainability and gender equality, thereby giving its support to an organization that promotes abortion and contraception. On the very day dedicated to the Immaculate Conception – December 8, 2020 – almost like a shameful insult against the Blessed Mother, a new partnership was ofcially instituted between the Vatican and the “Council for Inclusive Capitalism” promoted by Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a close friend of Hillary Clinton and Jefrey Epstein, after sending a message of praise to Klaus Schwab, the president of the World Economic Forum and theorist of the Great Reset. And in order not to give rise to misunderstandings, after numerous appeals to obey the authorities in the emergency of the psycho-pandemic, it appears that the Covid vaccine will be made obligatory for all the ofcials and staf of Vatican City, despite the fact that is has been produced with aborted fetal tissue and provides no guarantee of being either efective or harmless.

I believe it is now understood beyond all reasonable doubt that the leaders of the present

6 Catholic Hierarchy have placed themselves at the service of the globalist Oligarchy and Freemasonry: the idolatrous cult of the pachamama in the Vatican Basilica is now joined by a sacrilegious Nativity scene, whose symbology appears to allude to ancient Egyptian rites as well as aliens. Only a naive person or an accomplice can deny that in this whole chain of events there is a very clear ideological coherence and a lucid diabolical mind.

But as I have already pointed out, it would be misleading to limit oneself to an evaluation of events within the Church without framing them in the wider political and social context: there is only one direction being given in which both the main protagonists as well as the extras follow the same script. The purpose has now been declared: destroying Nations from within by means of the deep state and the Church of Christ by means of the deep church, in order to establish the kingdom of the Antichrist, with the help of the False Prophet.

The secret Sino-Vatican agreement, very strongly desired by Bergoglio and renewed a few weeks ago, fts perfectly into this disturbing picture, confrming the pactum sceleris which consigns Chinese Catholics to persecution, dissidents to reeducation, churches to demolition, Sacred Scripture to censorship and adulteration. It is no coincidence that this agreement, which the Popes always refused with disdain, was made possible thanks to the ofces of the former Cardinal McCarrick and his accomplices, with the decisive help of the Jesuits: the actors, we know, are always the same. They are both corrupted and corruptors, both blackmailed and blackmailers, all united by their rebellion against doctrine and morals and indiscriminately subservient to anti-Catholic, indeed anti-Christian, powers.

Communist China constitutes the militant arm of the New World Order, both in the spread of a mutant virus created in a laboratory, as well as in the interference in the American Presidential elections and the enlistment of ffth columns in the service of Beijing regime. It also promotes the apostasy of the leaders of the Church, preventing her from proclaiming the Gospel and placing herself as a defending wall against the attack of the élite. The fact that this brings economic advantages for the Vatican makes the Bergoglian sect’s subservience to this infernal plan even more shameful, creating a signifcant counterpoint to the business of migrants, which is also part of the intentional dissolution of the society that once was Christian. It is disconcerting that such a scandalous betrayal of the mission of the Catholic Church does not merit frm and courageous condemnation from the Episcopate, which – in the face of evidence of an apostasy pursued with ever greater determination – does not dare to raise its voice out of fear or a false concept of prudence.

The words of Dr. Arthur Tane, Director of the Council on Middle East Relations, may sound bold and strong, but they have the merit of highlighting without false fears the subversion carried out under this most ominous “pontifcate.” It is to be hoped that with the publication of Tane’s letter to Cardinal Parolin there will be some who will fnally open their eyes, before the plot of the conspirators is accomplished. In this regard, we agree with commendable denunciation made by Cardinal Burke on the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe about the use of COVID for the purposes of the “Great Reset” – a denunciation that joins the one I made last May and have reiterated many times, as well as that of other Pastors who are faithful to the Word of God and solicitous towards their fock.

The letter of Arthur Tane to the Secretary of State closes with a citation from the Gospel that is more appropriate than ever: “Either the Church understands the signifcance of its mission, or it itself has become a temple of money changers. For in the words of Jesus: It is written that my house will be called a house of prayer, but you are making it a den of robbers (Mt 21:12-

7 13).”

As Bishops, we cannot be silent: our silence would constitute an intolerable connivance and complicity with those mercenaries who, abusing a usurped power, deny Christ and consign souls to the Enemy of the human race.

• Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop Former Apostolic Nuncio in the United States of America • Original Source: OnePeterFive

December 12, 2020 Jericho March Speech

Dear brothers and sisters,

I greet all of you on this day dedicated to prayer for our beloved Nation, the United States of America. Let’s ask God to make truth and justice triumph! Let’s ask Him to dispel the lies and deceptions of the children of darkness!

You have organized these marches in many cities in America, and named them after a Biblical event: the siege of Jericho. Jericho was the frst city that the people of Israel came to after they crossed the Jordan River and entered the Promised Land. The way that God commanded the Hebrew people to conquer Jericho shows us the wonderful ways of the Lord, which are so diferent from our ways! The Book of Joshua tells us that Jericho was walled up and completely closed – it appeared to be an impregnable fortress! It appeared that a long siege would be necessary to conquer it by hunger, or else that huge weapons of war would be needed to break down its walls. And yet the only thing God commanded was that the people walk around the city with the Ark of the Covenant, blowing the Jubilee Trumpets, as the soldiers and people followed in perfect silence, for seven days.

God did not want to make the city of Jericho fall immediately, in order to show mercy to its inhabitants and invite them to do penance. As Saint John Chrysostom says, “The Lord, who took six days to create the heavens and the earth, took seven days to destroy a sinful city.” The Jubilee Trumpets that sounded around the city were used by the Jews to announce pardon and forgiveness. God would not have made them sound without an ending that was full of goodness. In the same way, an ending that is full of goodness inspires our prayer today, for our Country and for our President!

Even the little children walked with their mothers around the city: those little ones were the most chosen portion of all, because they embodied the innocence that overwhelmed wickedness. Thus, moral strength fought against brutal violence, faith fought against

8 unbelief, obedience fought against arrogant rebellion, humility fought against pride, and faith in the Lord fought against the presumption of man. God revealed the superiority of the power of Good over the power of Evil through an astonishing intervention. We too, in this hour of great tribulation for our Nation, are praying that truth will triumph over lies, justice over abuse and fraud, honesty over corruption, honor over infamy, faithfulness over betrayal, and that order will triumph over destruction.

We are the silent army of the children of Light, the humble ranks who overthrow evil by invoking God, the praying army that walks around the walls of lies and betrayal in order to bring them down.

We fght the battles of the Lord with faith and courage, carrying the Ark of the Covenant in our hearts, remaining faithful to the teachings of the Gospel of Our Lord! We do not need material strength to fght, because we have the Lord of Armies at our side! Nothing can resist the power of the prayer. The walls of the Deep State, behind which evil is barricaded, will come crashing down!

Jericho was also the place where Jesus Christ converted the tax collector Zaccheus. We pray for the conversion of public ofcials who have become complicit in public fraud and have betrayed their oath to serve our Nation.

Along the road that led from Jerusalem to Jericho, the Good Samaritan stopped to help and care for the traveler who was attacked by robbers. May his fraternal charity be an example for Patriots who are called to serve our homeland that has been attacked and wounded by both internal and external enemies.

It was also in Jericho that the Lord healed Bartimaeus of his blindness. May the blind man’s faith spur us on to conversion, so that we place our trust once again in God and that He may hear the cry of our prayer for our beloved Nation.

We are citizens of Heaven: this is the homeland that awaits us for eternity. On this earth we are also children of a homeland that gave us birth and in which we were raised and educated, a homeland we have served with dedication and courage. Be proud, as Christians and as Patriots, to be able to give witness today to your faith in God and your love for the United States of America, for its Constitution, and for its President Donald J. Trump.

Let us pray…

O Lord, Almighty God, prostrate before Thee we invoke Thy powerful protection in this hour of great turmoil, when darkness seems to be spreading over our beloved Nation.

Make vain the assaults of those who, blinded by vice and hatred of Thee, wish to subject our Nation and the whole world to the tyranny of sin and rebellion. Grant wisdom and courage to those who are called to decide the fortunes of the United States of America, and to those who serve their country with fdelity and honor.

9 Lord, bless our President and our public ofcials. For those who exercise the power entrusted to them from above, obtain the graces necessary to carry out their duties with integrity and justice.

O Almighty God, who many times hast manifested the power of Thy right hand at the side of Christian armies, place Thyself at the head of this army of Thy children. Let the prayer we address to Thee through the intercession of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the Patroness of the Americas, rise up to Thee, so that we may attain the freedom and peace that Thou hast promised us.

And just as in the time of Joshua, raise up holy heroes and courageous witnesses of the Faith, so also today hear the prayer we raise to Thee, and break down the walls of the City of darkness, granting victory to those who serve under Thy holy banner. Amen.

God bless our President God Bless the United States of America One Nation under God

Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop Former Apostolic Nuncio in the United States of America

Original Source: LifeSite News

______

December 1, 2020 The "Church" of Bergoglio: The New Sanhedrin

The rich man who feasted in the Gospel parable (Lk 16: 19-31), after being condemned to hell for not having helped the poor man Lazarus, asks Abraham to warn his fve brothers about the torments to which he was subjected, in order to prevent them from falling into the same sin. Abraham answers him: “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead” (Lk 16:31).

Over the course of history, Our Lady has intervened as a loving Mother to warn us of the punishments that weigh upon the world because of its sins, in order to invite mankind to conversion and penance, and to fll her children with innumerable graces. Wherever the Word of God seems to be forgotten, there the voice of Mary Most Holy is heard, now to announce a particular devotion, now to ask for sacrifces and prayers to escape pestilences and scourges. In Quito, La Salette, Lourdes, Fatima, Rome, Akita, Civitavecchia, and in a thousand other places, the Mediatrix of all Graces has admonished us, recalling humanity, misled into rebellion against the Divine Law, to true repentance and the recitation of the Holy Rosary. Although the various times and circumstances of her apparitions change, She who deigns to show herself to us poor mortals is always the same, ever Merciful, ever our Advocate.

10 At Fatima the Lady who appeared to the shepherd children asked the Pope, in union with all the Bishops, to consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart: this appeal remains unheeded to this day, despite the disasters which the world would have to face if it did not heed the requests of the Most Holy Virgin. The militant atheism of Communism has spread everywhere, and the Church is persecuted by ruthless and cruel enemies, while she is also infested by corrupt clerics given over to vice. And yet, despite the recognition of the supernatural origin of the apparitions and the evidence of the calamities which afict mankind, the Hierarchy refuses to obey the Blessed Mother. “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead,” Abraham says to the rich man in the parable. Is it possible that they do not even know how to listen to the voice of the Mother of God, who is also Our Mother? What oppresses their hearts, what obscures their minds to such an extent that they are deaf and blind, while the world sinks into the abyss and so many souls are damned?

In obedience to the Universal Lordship of Christ the King, we also accept venerating Mary Most Holy as our Queen. And when we address our Father with the words, “Thy will be done,” we know that this will coincides perfectly with the will of our Mother, the model of obedience and humility who merited to be chosen from the beginning of time to generate the King of Kings in her virginal womb. Every desire of the Mother of God is an order for us: it does not even need to be thought of as a command, because our response and our desire is – and must be – to please her and give her proof of our fdelity. And this is eminently true for the Sacred Ministers, who in the Sacrament of Holy Orders bear upon themselves the priestly anointing of the High Priest Jesus Christ: in each priest, Mary Most Holy sees Her Son, who mystically renews his own sacrifce upon the altar through their hands.

It causes pain therefore – a hollow and tearing pain – to see the indiference of so many consecrated souls and of so many bishops – too many – towards the Blessed Virgin Mary. It pains and tears the heart to hear Bergoglio himself speak with such a total lack of respect for Our Lady, and to learn that after he drastically reduced the papal liurgical celebrations for last Easter, he has now sought to take advantage of Covid to cancel part of the liturgical celebrations for Holy Christmas and to cancel the tradition by which each year on December 8 the Pope goes to Piazza di Spagna in Rome to venerate the monument of the Immaculate Virgin that was erected there in 1857. Thus another piece of Rome is thrown away, another pound of fesh that the cynical merchant claims from the life of the Roman people as proof of their fdelity to the health dictatorship.

The Church of Catholics, the Church that loves those who honor themselves with the name of Christian, is the Church that does not retreat before civil authority, thereby making herself an accomplice and courtesan of it, but rather the Church that endures persecution with courage and a supernatural gaze, knowing that it is better to die amidst the most atrocious torments than to ofend the Most Blessed Virgin and Her Divine Son.

She is the Church that does not remain silent when the tyrant defes the Majesty of God, aficts her subjects, and betrays the justice and authority that legitimizes it. She is the Church that does not yield in the face of blackmail nor allow herself to be seduced by power or money. She is the Church that ascends Calvary, as the Mystical Body of Christ,

11 in order to complete in her own members the suferings of the Redeemer and to rise again triumphantly with Him. She is the Church who assists the weak and the oppressed with mercy and charity, while she stands fearless and terrible in the face of the arrogant and the proud. When the Pope of this Church used to speak, the fock of Christ heard the consoling voice of the Shepherd, in a long series of popes who were unanimous and in agreement in the profession of the one Faith.

Conversely, the so-called “church” of Bergoglio does not hesitate to close churches, arrogating to itself the wicked right to deny God public worship and to deprive the faithful of the grace of the Sacraments through a wretched connivance with civil power. This “church” humiliates the Most Holy Trinity, lowering it to the level of idols and demons with sacrilegious rituals of a neo-pagan religion. It snatches the crown and scepter away from Christ the King in the name of Masonic Globalism; it ofends the Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix in order not to annoy the heretics, Her enemies. It betrays the duty of preaching the Gospel in the name of dialogue and tolerance. It silences and adulterates Sacred Scripture and the Commandments of God in order to please the spirit of the world. It tampers with the sublime and inviolable words of the Prayer which the Lord Himself taught us. It profanes the holiness of the Priesthood, cancelling the spirit of penance and mortifcation in clergy and religious and abandoning them to the seductions of the devil. It denies two thousand years of history, despising the glories of Christianity and the wise intervention of Divine Providence in earthly afairs. It zealously follows fashions and idelogies rather then molding souls to follow Christ. It makes itself a slave of the Prince of this world in order to preserve its prestige and power. It preaches the blasphemous cult of man and refuses the sovereign rights of God. And when Bergoglio speaks, the faithful are almost always scandalized and disoriented, because his words are the exact opposite of what they expect to hear from the Vicar of Christ. He asks for obedience to his own authority even as he uses it to destroy the Papacy and the Church, contradicting all of his Predecessors, none excluded.

We have the promise of Mary Most Holy: “In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph.” Let us bow before that heart, which beats with the most pure Charity, so that the fame of that holy love may refect on each one of us, so that the fame which burns in it may illuminate our minds and make them capable of grasping the signs of the times. And if our Shepherds are silent out of fear or complicity, the multitude of lay people and good souls have the opportunity to compensate for their betrayal and expiate their sins, invoking the Mercy of God who “has come to the help of his servant, Israel, remembering his mercy” (Lk 1:54).

Today the high priests of this modern Sanhedrin outrage Our Lord and His Most Holy Mother, complacent servants of the globalist élite who want to establish the kingdom of Satan; tomorrow they will retreat before the victory of the Virgo Potens, who will restore the Holy Church and will give peace and harmony to society, thanks to the prayers and sacrifces of so many of her humble and unknown children.

May this be our vow for the upcoming Feast of the Immaculate Conception, with which to honor Our Lady and Queen.

Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

12 Original Source: LifeSite News

______

November 24, 2020 Extended Response to McCarrick Report

Between the lines of the report of the secretariat of state on Theodore McCarrick The McCarrick Report published by the Secretariat of State on November 10, 2020, has been the object of numerous comments. Some point out its shortcomings, while others praise it as a proof of Bergoglio’s transparency and the groundlessness of my accusations. I would like to focus on some aspects that deserve to be further explored, which do not concern me personally. The purpose of these refections is thus not to adduce further evidence concerning the falsity of arguments raised against me, but rather to highlight the inconsistencies of the report and the confict of interest that exists between the one who judges and the one being judged, which in my opinion is such as to invalidate the investigation, the trial, and the sentence.

The disinterestedness of the judging body First of all, I must say that, in contrast with a normal civil or penal trial, in ecclesiastical investigations there is a sort of implicit right to credibility in testimonies given by clerics. This seems to have allowed even testimonies of prelates who could fnd themselves in a position of complicity with regard to McCarrick to be considered as evidence, even though they would have had no interest in revealing the truth, since doing so would have harmed themselves and their own image. In short, to borrow an image from Carlo Collodi, it is hard to imagine that the Cat (Kevin Farrell) could credibly exonerate the Fox (Theodore McCarrick); yet this is what has happened, just as it was possible to deceive John Paul II about the advisability of appointing McCarrick as Cardinal Archbishop of Washington, or Benedict XVI about the gravity of the accusations that weighed on the cardinal.

By now it is understood that this right to credibility, when applied to the Argentine, has risen to the level of a dogma, perhaps the only dogma that cannot be questioned in the church of mercy, especially when alternative interpretations of reality – which mortals prosaically call lies – are formulated precisely by him.

We are also left bewildered by the fact that Msgr. Farrell’s testimony in defense of McCarrick has been reported with emphasis – the Bishop is even referred to with the title of “Most Excellent” – but that at the same time the testimony of James Grein was completely omitted, just as the choice was prudently made not to take a deposition from the Secretaries of State Sodano and Bertone. Nor is it clear for what reason Farrell’s words in defense of his friend and housemate are considered valid and credible, while mine are not, even though I am an Archbishop and Apostolic Nuncio. The only reason I can identify is that while Farrell’s words confrm Bergoglio’s thesis, mine refute it and demonstrate that it was not only the Bishop of Dallas who was lying.

13 It should also be remembered that Cardinal Wuerl, McCarrick’s successor on the chair of Washington, resigned on October 12, 2018, due to pressure from public opinion after his repeated denials of having been aware of the depraved conduct of his brother bishop. Yet in 2004 Wuerl had to handle the complaint made by Robert Ciolek, a former priest of the Diocese of Metuchen, against McCarrick, sending it to the then-Apostolic Nuncio Msgr. Gabriel Montalvo. In 2009, it was Wuerl who ordered McCarrick’s transfer from Redemptoris MaterSeminary to Saint Thomas the Apostle Parish in Washington, and in 2010 it was Wuerl himself, along with the President of the Bishops’ Conference, Cardinal Francis George, who advised the Secretariat of State against sending a congratulatory message to McCarrick on the occasion of his 80th birthday. The Report also cites the correspondence between Nuncio Sambi and Wuerl concerning the danger of scandal surrounding McCarrick’s person; the same may be said for the correspondence of Cardinal Re, the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, which confrms that Wuerl “constantly favored McCarrick even when he was not living in the seminary.” It is therefore very strange that the serious suspicions which weighed on the cardinal prior to my appointment [as Nuncio], which are amply documented in the Report, are considered grounds for censure against me – despite my having once again notifed the Secretariat of State about them – but not against Wuerl, who even after his resignation as Archbishop of Washington retained his posts in the Roman Dicasteries, including the Congregation for Bishops where he retained his voice in the appointment of bishops.

It is not clear why the drafters of the Report are so casual in judging John Paul II for having put faith in his secretary’s words in defense of McCarrick, yet so absolving towards Bergoglio, despite the fact that there was a pile of dossiers concerning Uncle Ted, whom Bergoglio’s predecessor had requested to “keep a low profle.”

I believe the time has come to clarify once and for all the position of the judging body – rectius: of this judging body – with respect to the accused.

According to the law, a judge must be impartial, and in order to be such he must not have any interest or connection with the one being judged. In reality, this impartiality fails in one of the most sensational canonical processes in the history of the Church, in which the scandals and crimes alleged against the accused are of such gravity that they merited his deposition from being a cardinal and his reduction to the lay state.

The absence of a true condemnation It is necessary to emphasize the extreme mildness of the sentence inficted on the ofender, indeed one could even say its absence, since the one accused was only deprived of the clerical state with an administrative procedure from the tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratifed as res iudicata by Bergoglio. And yet it would have been possible to give him a prison sentence, as was done for the counselor at the Nunciature in Washington who in 2018 was sentenced to fve years in prison in the Vatican for the possession and dissemination of child pornography.

In truth, dismissal from the clerical state reveals the essence of that clericalism – so deplored in words – which considers the lay state almost as a punishment in itself, while it ought to be the premise for the imposition of a penal sanction. Among other things, the

14 lack of imprisonment or at least house arrest permits McCarrick to have a total freedom of movement and action that keeps his situation unchanged. He is therefore in a position to commit new crimes and to continue to carry out his criminal activities in both the ecclesial and political spheres.

Finally, it should be remembered that the canonical process does not eliminate the criminal cases against the former cardinal which have been introduced in American courts, which strangely languish in the utmost secrecy, further demonstrating McCarrick’s political power and media infuence not only in the Vatican but also in the United States.

Conficts of interest and omissions It is difcult to look at the “judge” of this case without considering the fact that he may fnd himself in a position of having a debt of gratitude towards the accused and his accomplices: that is, that he has a clear confict of interest.

If Jorge Mario Bergoglio owes his election to the conspiracy of the so-called Saint Gallen Mafa, which included ultra-progressive cardinals in constant and assiduous relationship with McCarrick; if McCarrick’s endorsement of candidate Bergoglio found a hearing among the conclave electors and those who have the power of persuasion in the Vatican, for example the famous “Italian gentleman” whom the American cardinal referred to in a 2013 conference at Villanova University; if the resignation of Benedict XVI was in some way provoked or favored by interference from the deep church and the deep state, it is logical to suppose that Bergoglio and his collaborators did not have any intention of letting the names of McCarrick’s accomplices leak into the Report, nor the names of those who favored him in his ecclesiastical cursus honorum, nor above all the names of those who in the face of the possibility of a conviction could in some way take revenge, for example by revealing the involvement of prominent personalities of the Roman Curia, if not of Bergoglio himself.

In blatant contradiction of the claimed pretense of transparency, the Report took great care not to reveal the acts of the administrative process. It is therefore possible to ask if McCarrick’s defense may have agreed to the sentencing of his client in exchange for a ridiculously small sentence that in fact leaves the ofender who committed such serious crimes in total freedom, while preventing the victims from challenging the “judge” and demanding fair compensation. Certainly, the anomaly is obvious, even to those who are not experts in the law.

The shared interests of the deep church and the deep state In this network of complicity and blackmail, it is also possible to highlight ties of both the “judge” and the accused with politics, in particular with the American Democratic Party, with Communist China, and more generally with the globalist movements and parties. The fact that in 2004 McCarrick, who was then Archbishop of Washington, worked strenuously to prevent the dissemination of the letter of the then-Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, to the bishops of the United States with regard to the ban on administering Holy Communion to politicians who support abortion, undoubtedly represents an assist to self-styled Catholic Democratic politicians, beginning with John Kerry all the way up to Joe Biden. The latter, a convinced supporter of abortion, merited the almost-unanimous support of the

15 hierarchy, thus being able to count on the votes of an electorate that would otherwise have been destined for Trump. Strange coincidences, to be honest: on the one hand the deep state struck at the Church and Benedict XVI with the intention of electing a representative of the deep church as Pope; on the other hand the deep church struck at the State and Trump with the intention of electing a representative of the deep state as President. Let the reader judge whether the plans of the conspirators have achieved their intended purpose.

This collusion with the global Left is the necessary corollary of a much larger project, in which the ffth columns of dissolution that have penetrated into the heart of the Church actively collaborate with the deep state following a single script under a single direction: the actors in this pièce [play] have diferent parts, but they follow the same plot on the same stage.

Analogies with the pandemic and the electoral fraud On closer inspection, both the pandemic and the electoral fraud in the United States have disturbing similarities to the McCarrick case and to what is happening in the Church. Those who have to decide whether to confne the entire population at home or to obligate it to be vaccinated make use of unreliable detection tools, precisely because by means of these they succeed in falsifying the data, with the complicity of the mainstream media. It matters little whether the virus has a mortality rate similar to that of a seasonal fu or if the number of deceased is similar to that of preceding years: someone has decided that there simply is a pandemic and that the world economy must be demolished in order to create the premise for the Great Reset. Rational arguments, scientifc evaluations, and the experience of serious scientists engaged in the care of patients are all worth nothing in the face of the script that has been imposed on the actors.

The same holds true for the elections in the United States: in the face of the evidence of fraud – which is acquiring the contours of a true and proper coup d’état carried out by criminal minds – the media insist on presenting Joe Biden as the victor, and world leaders – including the Holy See – are in a hurry to acknowledge his victory, to discredit his Republican adversaries, and to present Trump as a lonely bully who is about to be abandoned by his family and even by the First Lady. It matters little that there are dozens and dozens of videos on the internet showing the irregularities committed during the counting of the votes, or that there are hundreds of testimonies of fraud: the Democrats, the media, and the entire cast repeat that Biden is President-Elect and that Trump should step aside. Because, in the kingdom of lies, if reality does not correspond to the narrative, it is reality that must be corrected and censured. Thus, millions of people in the streets to protest against the lockdown or against electoral fraud simply do not exist, because of the simple fact that the mainstream media does not show them on television and censors them on the internet, and that whatever it denounces as fake news must acritically be considered as such.

The enslavement of part of the hierarchy It is therefore not surprising that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, followed like clockwork by Vatican News and an afectionate phone call from Bergoglio to Biden, made haste to give proof of its fdelity to the system: these ecclesiastics are intrinsically involved and must scrupulously stick to the part that has been given to them.

16 They did the same, on the global level, by supporting Covid restrictions with the closure of the churches, ordering the suspension of the celebration of Masses and even inviting the faithful to obey the civil authorities. The Archbishop of Washington allowed himself to criticize the ofcial visit of the First Couple to the Shrine of Saint John Paul II and expressed himself, along with other bishops and clerics, in support of BLM: such self- sacrifce for the cause merited him the cardinal’s red hat during these very days. And it is no coincidence that adherence to the globalist agenda comes from people who are fully compromised in supporting the LGBTQ movements, beginning with Cupich, Tobin, Wuerl, McElroy, and Stowe. The deafening silence of the Holy See and the world episcopate in the face of ethical problems posed by the soon-to-be-distributed vaccines, which contain cells from aborted human fetuses, is quite signifcant. God forbid that the speculation of the pharmaceutical companies on the pandemic also sees the deep church as the recipient of generous “donations” – as has already happened with the Agreement between China and the Vatican.

Vices and corruption fnd the deep church and deep state united in a cesspool of repugnant crimes, in which the defenseless and children are the victims of exploitation, violence and harassment committed by characters who at the same time promote abortion, gender ideology, and the sexual freedom of minors, including sex changes. Illegal immigration as well – which is supported in order to destabilize nations and cancel their identities – fnds support from both the Left as well as the church of Bergoglio, despite the fact that it is directly connected with the trafcking of minors, the increase of criminality and the destruction of the social fabric. Indeed, it is supported for precisely for this reason, just as there has been a desire to encourage the political crisis in the US elections, the economic crisis through the criminal manipulation of the pandemic, and possibly also religious warfare via the Islamic attacks and profanations of churches throughout Europe.

The need for an overview It is also very disconcerting that, in this perfectly coherent framework, there are many prelates – if not almost all of them – who limit themselves to analyzing the events that afect the Catholic Church almost as if they existed only in the ecclesial sphere, as if they did not have any relation with the political and social events that are unfolding on the global level. There are bishops who formulate some timid stances in the face of Bergoglio’s words in support of the legalization of civil unions, or over the inconsistencies and falsifcations that emerge in the McCarrick Report; but none of them, even if animated by good intentions, dare to denounce the evidence of the facts, namely the existence of a pactum sceleris between the deviant part of the Hierarchy – the deep church, precisely – and the deviant part of the State, of the world of fnance and information. Yet it is so evident that it has been the object of analysis by numerous, mostly secular, intellectuals.

The loss of credibility This point must be denounced loudly: the Report drawn up by the Secretariat of State is an indecent and clumsy attempt to give a semblance of credibility to a gang of perverts and corrupt men in the service of the New World Order. The surreal thing is that this operation of impudent mystifcation has been carried out, not by the accused, but by those who ought to judge him, and along with him they paradoxically ought to judge

17 themselves, their brothers, their friends, and those to whom they guaranteed impunity, promotions, and careers.

The credibility of the writers of the Report may be demonstrated from its mild condemnation of a prelate organic to the system, whom Bergoglio himself sent as an interlocutor of the Holy See with the Chinese communist dictatorship, and who at the same time carried out ofcial assignments on behalf of the U.S. State Department, frequenting the Clintons, Obamas, Bidens, and the Democrats. This credibility may also be confrmed by the fact that a corrupt homosexual, a molester of young men and children, a corrupter of clergy and seminarians, was simply deprived of the dignity of cardinal and of the clerical state without any prison sentence and without excommunicating him for the delicts with which he stained himself, including the crime of “sollicitatio ad turpia” in Confession, one of the most hateful crimes that a priest can commit. In this “process,” as summary as it was omissory, the spiritual dimension of guilt was completely absent: the guilty party was not subjected to excommunication, which is an eminently medicinal sanction ordered towards eternal salvation, nor was he exhorted to do penance, to make public amends and reparation.

An independent commission When the Nuremberg trials were held after World War II against the crimes of Nazism, the court was presided over by a Russian judge who was charged with judging the invasion of Poland that Germany, as we know, had undertaken precisely with Russia. It seems to me that there is not much diference between this and what we see happening today in the attempt to lay responsibility for the McCarrick case on John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and the undersigned. The only one who in the narrative of the Secretariat of State cannot be touched by any suspicion, by any accusation – even if only indirect – or by any shadow of cover-up, should obviously be the Argentine.

It would seem appropriate for an independent commission to be constituted – as was already hoped for by the U.S. Bishops’ Conference in November 2018 and as was then frmly blocked by the Congregation for Bishops at the order of Bergoglio – that would investigate this case without external infuences and without hiding decisive evidence. However, I doubt that the improbable hopes of the U.S. Bishops’ Conference will be heard, since among those being raised to cardinal in the upcoming consistory is the Archbishop of Washington, the executor of Santa Marta’s orders, who joins the most faithful servants Cupich and Tobin.

If light would truly be shed on the entire afair, the whole house of cards constructed in these years would collapse, and the complicity of members of the Hierarchy at the highest levels would also emerge, as well as their ties with the American Democrats and the global Left. In short, there would be confrmed what many do not yet dare admit, namely, the role played by the deep church, since the election of John XXIII, in creating the theological premises and the ecclesial climate that would allow the Church to be the servant of the New World Order and to replace the Pope with the false prophet of the Antichrist. If this has not yet completely happened, we must give thanks only to Providence.

Intellectual honesty

18 I imagine that the moderates – as silent today in the face of Covid as they are in deploring the electoral fraud or the farce of the McCarrick Report – are horrifed at the mere mention of calling into question the Second Vatican Council. The Democrats too are horrifed to hear criticism of the laws thanks to which the United States has come to see the will of the voters subverted. The self-styled health experts are horrifed to see their claims contested which contrast with the scientifc truth and with the epidemiological evidence. The supporters of the reception of illegal immigrants are horrifed when they are shown the rate of murder, rape, violence and robbery committed by those same illegal immigrants. The supporters of the gay lobby are horrifed when the criminal ofenses of a predatory nature committed by clerics are shown to involve a very high percentage of homosexuals. In this general tearing of garments, I would like to recall that it would be enough to have a little intellectual honesty and a little critical judgment to look the evidence in the face, even if it is painful.

The link between heresy and sodomy This intrinsic link between doctrinal deviation and moral deviation emerged clearly on the occasion of the head-on clash with those covering up the McCarrick case: the people involved are almost always the same, with the same vices against faith and morals. They defend, cover for, and promote each other, because they are part of a true and proper “lobby,” understood as a group holding power that is capable of infuencing the activity of the legislator and the decisions of the government or the other administrative organs to their own advantage.

In the ecclesiastical feld, this lobby works to cancel the moral condemnation of sodomy, and it does so frst of all for its own advantage, since it is primarily composed of sodomites. It adapts to the political agenda in legitimizing the demands of the LGBTQ movements, promoted by politicians who are no less given over to vice. And the role played by the Catholic Church in recent decades is also evident – or better said, by its morally and doctrinally deviant part – in opening the Overton window on homosexuality, in such a way that the sin against nature that the Church has always condemned was somehow disavowed from the evidence of the increasingly emergent scandals.

If forty years ago it was horrifying to learn about a priest molesting a little boy, for some years now the news has been informing us of the raid of the Vatican Gendarmerie in the apartment of the secretary of Cardinal Coccopalmiero in the palace of the Holy Ofce, where a party was being held by clergy with drugs and prostitutes. From here it will be a relatively small step to legitimizing pedophilia, as certain politicians would like: the premises made by the theorization of the alleged “sexual rights” of minors, the imposition of sexual education in primary schools at the recommendation of the United Nations, and the attempts to pass legislation in Parliaments to lower the age of consent are all heading in the same direction. Some naive person – assuming that it is still possible to speak of naivety – will say that the Church will never be able to say that she is in favor of the corruption of children, because this would contradict the uninterrupted Catholic Magisterium. I limit myself to recalling what was said only a few years ago with regard to so-called homosexual “matrimony” – or about the ordination of women, ecclesiastical celibacy, or the abolition of the death penalty – and that which vice-versa is afrmed with impunity today, to the world’s applause.

19 The McCarrick “Line” What should be noted in the Report is not so much what it contains as what it is silent about and what it hides under a mountain of documents and testimonies, no matter how horrifying they may be. Many journalists and many ecclesiastics were aware of the scandalous life of the “man with the red hat,” but nevertheless considered him Machiavellianly useful to the interests of the Democratic Party expression of the deep state and the progressive Catholic expression of the deep church.

As the Washingtonianwrote in 2004:

“With a controversial Catholic in the presidential race [John Kerry], the cardinal is seen by many as the Vatican’s man in Washington – and he may play a big role in the selection of the next pope” (here).

A role McCarrick proudly claimed in the address he gave on October 11, 2013, at Villanova University, and that today, with Cardinal Farrell raised by Bergoglio’s appointment to Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church, could be realized once again. Given the relationships of loyalty that are consolidated between the members of the “lavender mafa,” it is at least reasonable to think that McCarrick is still able to intervene in the election of the Pope, not only thanks to his network of friends and accomplices, some of whom are cardinals electors, but also by playing an active role in the procedures of the conclave and its preparation.

Would we be surprised if, after noting the electoral fraud in the presidential election in the United States, “someone” would even try to manipulate the election of the Supreme Pontif? Let us not forget that, as has already been noted by several parties, on the fourth vote of the second day of the last conclave an irregularity emerged in the counting of the ballots, which was remedied by a new vote, in derogation from the provisions of the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis promulgated by John Paul II in 1996. It is however signifcant that, while on the one hand McCarrick is now ousted from his functions and resides in a secret locality (where he can continue undisturbed in his para- diplomatic activity on behalf of the deep state and the deep church in the anonymous guise of a layman), on the other hand all those who have made a career in the Church thanks to McCarrick are still in their places and have even been promoted: all people whom he favored because of a common lifestyle and common intentions; all blackmailable and blackmailers because of the secrets which they have come to know thanks to their position; all of them ready to pull out names and circumstances and dates if anyone dares to touch them. Some could still be forced to obey Mr. McCarrick, if he can keep them under blackmail or bribe them with the huge money at his disposal, even now that he is no longer a prince of the Church.

The “line” which this cardinal began is today capable – as we see – of interfering and working in the life of the Church and society, with the advantage of having discharged the sins of the entire “lavender mafa” onto a convenient scapegoat and to be able to appear today as if it is a stranger to allegations of abuse. But it is enough to walk through the gates of the Porta Angelica to come across unpresentable characters, some of whom

20 have been called to the Vatican to save them from investigations that were pending on them abroad; others are even regulars at Santa Marta or perform managerial duties there, consolidating the network of connivances and complicities under the indulgent eyes of the Prince. On the other hand, the emphasis on Bergoglio’s moralizing role smashes against the crude reality that nothing has ever really changed behind the high Leonine Wall, given the protection enjoyed by, among others, Peña Parra and Zanchetta.

The failure to condemn sodomy Some commentators have rightly highlighted a disheartening fact: the crimes for which McCarrick was summoned to judgment only concern the abuse of minors, while his unnatural relationships with consenting adults are quietly accepted and tolerated, as if the immoral and sacrilegious acts of a cleric are not to be deplored, but rather only his imprudence in not having known how to keep them within the secrecy of the home. This too will have to be accounted for by those responsible, above all in consideration of Bergoglio’s increasingly clear will to apply a laxist pastoral approach – according to the tested method of Amoris Laetitia – in derogation of the moral condemnation of sodomy.

The guilty and the victims of the scandals The paradoxical thing that emerges from the scandals of the clergy is that the latest concern of Bergoglio’s magic circle is to give justice to the victims, not only by compensating them (which, moreover, is not done by the perpetrators but by the dioceses, using the goods donated by the faithful) but also by punishing those responsible in an exemplary way. There ought to be punishment not only for delicts recognized as penal crimes by the laws of the State, but also for moral delicts, by which adults have been led into grave sin by sacred ministers. Who will heal the wounds of the soul, the stains on the purity of so many youth, including also seminarians and priests? By contrast, it appears that those who have been discovered and exposed to public execration consider themselves to be true victims: they feel they have been hindered in their interests, their trafcking, and their intrigues. Meanwhile, those who have denounced scandals, who ask for justice and truth, are considered guilty, beginning with priests who are transferred or deprived of the care of souls because they have dared to inform their bishop of the perversions of one of their brothers.

The holy church is the victim of the crimes of her ministers But there is another completely innocent victim of these scandals: the Holy Church. The image of the Spouse of Christ has been tarnished, humiliated and discredited, because those who committed these crimes acted by exploiting the trust placed in the dress which they wear, using their own role as priest or prelate to ensnare and corrupt souls. The ones responsible for this discrediting of the Church include also those in the Vatican, in dioceses, in convents, in Catholic schools and in religious organizations – we think, for example, of the Boy Scouts – who did not eradicate this scourge in the bud but even hid it and denied it. By now it is evident that this invasion of homosexuals and perverts was planned and intended: it was not a fortuitous event that occurred only due to the omission of controls, but rather a precise plan of systematic infltration of the Church in order to demolish it from within. And those to whom the Lord has entrusted the governance of His Spouse will have to answer to Him for this.

In all of this, however, our adversaries forget that the Church is not a faceless collection

21 of persons without faces who blindly obey mercenaries, but rather a Living Body with a Divine Head: Our Lord Jesus Christ. To think of being able to kill the Spouse of Christ without the Spouse intervening is a delusion that only Satan could believe possible. Indeed, he will come to realize that precisely in crucifying her, in covering her with spit and lashes of the whip just as the Savior was crucifed two thousand years ago, he is signing his own defnitive defeat. O mors, ero mors tua: morsus tuus ero, inferne [O death, I will be your death: Hell, I shall be your sting].

Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Original Source: Catholic Family News

______

November 14, 2020 Letter to US Supreme Court (Read at DC March)

Dear brothers and sisters, Allow me to address this message to you, spiritually united with all of you in the legitimate request for truth and transparency, in the face of the election fraud that is coming to light.

Some would have us believe that the people have spoken out in favor of one candidate, and they were foolish enough to tell us this while the vote-counting was still in progress. They were so sure of victory that they did not accept any dissenting voices, and even went so far as to censor the very words of the current President of the United States.

It is true: the people have spoken, but not in favor of those who promote the killing of innocent lives in the womb; not in favor of those who impose deadly ideologies on our children; not in favor of those who obey an international elite who wish to establish a New World Order. The people have spoken out in favor of traditional values, in defense of life, in defense of the family, and in defense of national sovereignty. Values that have made America great and which form the basis of your country’s freedom and peace, harmony and prosperity.

When the people do not obey media indoctrination, democracy no longer matters to the so-called Democrats: they have to resort to fraud, deception, and the manipulation of votes and consensus. But something has gone wrong: “The snare has been broken, and we have escaped” (Ps 123:7).

As Christians and honest citizens of this great and beloved Nation — which is proud to proclaim to be under God — we have a duty to trust that justice and truth will triumph, also on this occasion. And they will triumph not only through the honesty and fairness of so many people, but also and above all through our prayer. As lawyers and magistrates investigate the abuses and crimes committed, let us turn to the Lord, the Supreme Judge, through the intercession of Mary Most Holy, our powerful Advocate. This is the “Supreme Court” to which we can and must appeal, that the Will of God may be fulflled, and Truth may triumph over falsehood.

22 Prayer: O Lord Almighty God, Most Holy and Undivided Trinity, who in Thy love hast deigned to redeem sinful man through the Incarnation and Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ: prostrate before Thee we invoke Thy powerful protection in this hour of great turmoil, when darkness seems to be spreading over our beloved Nation. O Lord God of Hosts, drive back into hell the Enemy of mankind, who by Thy eternal decree is crushed by the foot of Our Mother and Queen, Mary Most Holy. Make vain the assaults of those who, blinded by vice and hatred of Thee, wish to subject our Nation and the whole world to the tyranny of sin and rebellion against Thy Most Holy Law. Grant wisdom and courage to those who are called to direct the fortunes of the United States of America, and to those who serve their country with fdelity and honor.

Lord, bless our President, our public ofcials, and our pastors. For those who exercise the power entrusted to them from above, obtain the graces necessary to carry out their duties with integrity and justice.

O Almighty God, who many times hast manifested the power of Thy right hand at the side of Christian armies, place Thyself at the head of this army of Thy children. Let the prayer we address to Thee through the intercession of Our Mediatrix, the Virgin Mary, rise up to Thee like incense, so that, resolved to observe Thy Commandments and to repent of our sins, we may attain the freedom and peace that Thou hast promised us: “Peace I leave you; My peace I give to you. Not as the world gives, do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid” (Jn 14:27).

Grant, O Lord God, peace to our people. Look not upon our unworthiness, but upon the merits of the Immaculate Virgin, the Queen and Patroness of the United States of America. May she present to the Throne of Thy Majesty our humble prayers, our holy intentions and our penances.

And just as in the time of the Maccabees, Thou raised up holy heroes and courageous witnesses of the Faith, so also today hear the prayer we raise to Thee, and scatter the proud in the conceit of their hearts, granting victory to those who serve under Thy holy banner. Amen.

GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GOD BLESS OUR PRESIDENT

Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Original Source: Taylor Marshall

23 November 11, 2020 Raymond Arroyo Interview

Raymond Arroyo: Your Excellency, the report claims you “did not come forward” to present evidence for this Vatican inquiry: were you asked to provide information? Did anyone reach out to you?

His Excellency, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: I am surprised to discover that a Report in which I am mentioned 306 times accuses me of not having “come forward” to testify in this Vatican inquiry on Theodore McCarrick. But according to the norm of canon law, the calling of witnesses is the responsibility of the one who is in charge of the process, on the basis of evidence gathered in the investigation phase.

My frst intervention about McCarrick, which I made as Delegate for Pontifcal Representations in the Secretariat of State, dates back to December 6, 2006, following a report of the then-Nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Pietro Sambi. Subsequently, in 2008, I presented a second Memorandum that reported facts of such gravity and in such detail that it led me to recommend that McCarrick be deposed as Cardinal and that he be reduced to the lay state. My Testimony of August 2018 is known to everyone, as are my subsequent declarations.

It is completely incomprehensible and anomalous that it was not considered opportune to call upon me to testify. But it is even more disturbing that this deliberate omission was then used against me. And they cannot claim that I made myself untraceable: the Secretariat of State has my personal email address, which is still active.

On the other hand, just as I was not consulted for the drafting of the McCarrick Report, so also in 2012, the three cardinals whom Benedict XVI placed in charge of the Vatileaks 1 investigation, did not call upon me to give testimony, even though I was also personally involved. Only after my explicit request, did Cardinal Julian Herranz, the head of the Commission, permit me to give a deposition, with these words: “If you really want to...!” Furthermore, it also seems signifcant to me that James Grein, the only victim of McCarrick’s sexual molestations who had the courage to denounce him publicly, does not appear in the Report, and that there is no trace of his testimony, in which he would have also reported the trip he made with McCarrick to St. Gallen at the end of the 1950s. From the public statements of James Grein, it is clear that the beginning of McCarrick’s climb – he was then a young, newly ordained priest – coincided with that visit to Switzerland, to a monastery that was later the site of the meetings of the conspirators of the so-called “St. Gallen mafa.” According to the declarations of the deceased Cardinal Godfried Danneels, that group of prelates decided to support the election of Bergoglio both after the death of John Paul II as well as during the conclave that followed the controversial resignation of Benedict XVI.

I recall that during a conference at Villanova University on October 11, 2013, then- Cardinal McCarrick admitted to having supported the election of Cardinal Bergoglio at the beginning of the General Congregations prior to the conclave that had been held a few

24 months earlier [in March 2013].

I wonder what sort of reliability a judicial body can have that has such an obvious confict of interest due to its past relationship with the accused. How can Bergoglio and the Secretariat of State that depends on him pretend to appear impartial when McCarrick went to the Vatican with an abnormal frequency; when in June 2013 he was tasked [by Bergoglio] with making a diplomatic trip to China? And how can one not think that their repeated attempts at cover-up and denial of their responsibility are the cause of the systematic efort to discredit me as a witness, in order not to bring to light the complicity and connivances that exist between them and McCarrick himself?

Arroyo: The Pope, according to the report, maintains that you did not inform him of McCarrick’s activities or restrictions in June of 2013. Your response?

Abp. Viganò: This statement is absolutely false. First of all, it was Bergoglio himself, on June 23, 2013, who explicitly asked me my opinion of McCarrick. As I testifed in my 2018 Memoir: I answered him with complete frankness […]: “Holy Father, I don’t know if you know Cardinal McCarrick, but if you ask the Congregation for Bishops there is a dossier this thick about him. He corrupted generations of seminarians and priests and Pope Benedict ordered him to withdraw to a life of prayer and penance.” The Pope did not make the slightest comment about those very grave words of mine and did not show any expression of surprise on his face, as if he had already known the matter for some time, and he immediately changed the subject. But then, what was the Pope’s purpose in asking me that question: “What is Cardinal McCarrick like?” He clearly wanted to fnd out if I was an ally of McCarrick or not.

It should be noted that I had learned from McCarrick himself that Bergoglio had received him four days before my audience, and that Bergoglio had authorized him to go to China. What was the point of asking me for an opinion, when Bergoglio already held McCarrick in the highest esteem?

McCarrick meanwhile came quietly to Rome, received assignments from the Vatican, including ofcial ones, and carried on with his activities as if nothing had happened. In May 2014, I learned from the Washington Times of a trip McCarrick made to the Central African Republic on behalf of the Department of State (the Secretary of State was then John Kerry): this trip is also mentioned in the Report. We are talking about 2014. And yet beginning in 2008, Benedict XVI had ordered the American Cardinal to retire to a private life, not to celebrate or attend public events, and not to make trips.

For this reason, given the way that McCarrick was being treated, I asked Cardinal Parolin if the sanctions against McCarrick were still to be considered valid. But I received no response.

At that point, having reported to the Pope in person, and having received no answer from the Secretary of State, what more could I do? To whom could I appeal?

From the Report, I learn that McCarrick’s continuous assignments and travels abroad

25 were considered by Archbishop Wuerl and even by Nuncio Sambi (deceased in 2011) as a “sufcient form of removal” (cf. footnote 1013 of the Report).

And I remain sincerely shocked to learn from the Report that:

"…the indications were not “sanctions”; they were not imposed by Pope Benedict XVI; McCarrick was never forbidden to celebrate Mass in public; McCarrick was not prohibited from giving lectures; Cardinal Re did not impose on McCarrick “the obligation” of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance; and McCarrick remained free to conduct activities, including travel, with the permission of the Holy See, including the Nuncio (cf. footnote 1006, ibidem).

If this is so, it means that despite the Cardinal’s reprehensible conduct, the Holy See did not consider it appropriate to take disciplinary measures against McCarrick, which confrms my denunciation of the corruption of the Curia.

Arroyo: The report goes to great pains to attempt to paint you as somehow lax in investigating the claims of Priest 3. (They brush by the fact that it was you who brought these concerns to the Holy See in the frst place). Did you avoid placing yourself “in a position to ascertain the credibility of Priest 3”?

Abp. Viganò: It is obvious what my role was in bringing McCarrick’s scandals to light, and that I have always taken steps to report any information that came into my possession to the Holy See. I recall that we are talking about 2012, when I had just been appointed Nuncio to the United States.

In the Report I am accused of not having followed up on the request for information regarding the accusations made by “Priest 3” against McCarrick. This is absolutely false! It is the writers of the Report themselves who provide the evidence of the deception they have concocted in order to crush me and discredit me. In fact, elsewhere in the Report it says that, on June 13, 2013, I wrote to Cardinal Ouellet, sending him both the letter that Bishop Bootkoski had written to me, as well as the letter sent to “Priest 3.” I informed him that the civil case of “Priest 3” had been dismissed without the possibility of appeal. Bishop Bootkoski characterized the accusations of “Priest 3” as false and slanderous. I would like to emphasize one aspect in particular. Those who accuse me of not having sent a written communication to Bishop Bootkoski, the Ordinary of “Priest 3” and Bishop of Metuchen, know very well that this depends on the precise directions of the Secretariat of State. And they know equally well – as the Report confrms – that there was a telephone communication between Bishop Bootkoski and me, about which I in turn informed Cardinal Ouellet.

It should not be forgotten that in those years there were lawyers who were not content to bring Dioceses to judgment for crimes committed by priests, but who wanted to demonstrate that the Holy See itself – like the headquarters of a multinational company –

26 held the ultimate responsibility for giving compensation to victims of molestation. Lawyer Jefrey Lena knows something about this; he succeeded in two separate trials in preventing responsibility for the cover-up of abuse from falling on Pope Benedict XVI.

Arroyo: And what are your thoughts on the Report placing the lion share of the blame for McCarrick’s rise and place in the Church at the feet of John Paul II and Benedict XVI?

Abp. Viganò: The intentions of the one who drafted the Report are clear: to pass of responsibility for the promotions of McCarrick to his Predecessors, one of whom is deceased and canonized (John Paul II), the other who is old and weak (Benedict XVI). The former cannot defend himself from the grave, while the latter is too meek to blatantly disavow his successor by calling him a liar and discrediting him, as well as the function he holds. The disturbing thing is that within the Report itself – which was obviously put together by many hands – there are numerous contradictions, enough to make the arguments set forth have little credibility.

I wonder then: who convinced John Paul II and Benedict XVI not to take into account the serious accusations against McCarrick? Who had an interest in getting McCarrick promoted, so that he could gain an advantage in terms of power and money? Someone probably made John Paul II believe that the accusations against McCarrick were fabricated, following the model of the discrediting operations that communist Poland had already carried out against good bishops and priests who opposed the regime.

In the case of John Paul II, the main party interested in the promotion of McCarrick was defnitely Cardinal Sodano. He was Secretary of State until September 2006: all information came to him. In November 2000 Nuncio Montalvo sent him his report and the accusations of grave abuse committed by McCarrick.

Let’s not forget that in this period the Father Maciel scandal broke out. Sodano sought to cover it up by falsifying a statement of Benedict XVI, in which it was said that the Pope considered the case closed. Benedict XVI called a plenary session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Cardinal Arinze succeeded in having Maciel condemned, despite the opposition of the Secretary of State.

The name of Cardinal Sodano also appeared in connection to a scandalous real estate speculation. In 2003, the Cardinal’s nephew, the engineer Andrea Sodano, with letters of recommendation from his uncle the Secretary of State and in his capacity as a consultant to the Follieri real estate group (in some ofcial documents he is also indicated as vice- president of the group), acquired property at rock bottom prices from American dioceses that were condemned to compensate damages from civil sexual abuse cases, obtaining an enormous economic advantage for himself to the detriment of the Church. Rafaello Follieri, the owner of the group, was convicted of fraud and money laundering, precisely because of reckless transactions in the sale of these properties. Needless to say, Follieri

27 had a close relationship with the Clinton Global Initiative and with the Clinton family, as well as the Democratic party: “The former President and Senator Hillary are our friends,” Follieri boasted.

The same connections, the same complicities, the same acquaintances always recur: McCarrick, Clinton, Biden, the Democrats, and the Modernists, along with a procession of homosexuals and molesters that is not irrelevant.

With regard to Benedict XVI, the ones who had daily, direct access to the Pope were the Secretary of State Bertone and the Substitute Sandri, who were able to control and flter information about McCarrick and exert pressure on the Holy Father.

Once again, the Report speaks for itself. The one who presented the question directly to Pope Benedict XVI was Cardinal Bertone, who, contrary to what I had repeatedly proposed – namely, that the very grave and detailed accusations against McCarrick required an exemplary canonical process leading to his removal from the College of Cardinals and his reduction to the lay state – led Pope Benedict to decide that no canonical process should be undertaken nor should any canonical sanctions be prescribed, but that instead “a simple appeal to McCarrick’s conscience and ecclesial spirit” would be made.

And here yet another fagrant contradiction appears evident: how is it possible to reconcile a simple appeal to conscience with the formal instructions that were given both to Nuncio Sambi and to me, according to which McCarrick could not reside in the seminary where he was living, could not participate in public activities, could not travel, and had to lead a retired life of prayer and penance?

The corruption of the highest levels of the Vatican is so evident that it leads one to consider the Report as an unworthy attempt to make Bergoglio appear absolutely alien to the manipulations of the Curia, indeed as a sort of implacable persecutor of the corrupt, while the evidence of the facts demonstrates the opposite. I would say that Bergoglio is to the deep church what Biden is to the deep state...

I would like to also note that the fact of blaming John Paul II for the appointment of McCarrick, despite the negative opinion of the Congregation of Bishops and its Prefect Cardinal Re, could be applied also to Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself, about whom the Superior General of the Jesuits expressed strong reservations. If Wojtyla made a mistake with McCarrick and, for this reason, is considered implicitly responsible for the scandals that occurred, what prevents this judgment from also being extended to the promotion of Bergoglio as Archbishop of Buenos Aires and then as Cardinal? Let’s remember that in the Consistory of 2001, in addition to McCarrick and Bergoglio, other leading members of the Saint Gallen Mafa received the red hat...

Arroyo: Is there anything else we should cover?

Abp. Viganò: In conclusion I would like to quote a recent article by Riccardo Cascioli, adopting his lucid judgment as my own:

28 "Although the fgure of a McCarrick who was a serial predator emerges from the Report, no great reaction was triggered until 2017, when the frst report of the abuse of a minor arrived. [...] In practice we are told that “immoral behavior with adults,” while certainly not a good thing, is however in the end something that is tolerated. The real alarm, the one that provides for penalties, even heavy ones, is sounded only if the one abused is a minor. As if the dozens and dozens of future priests who shared a bed with McCarrick, and who were thus for the most part condemned to an unbalanced priestly life, didn’t really count for much. As if the moral devastation and the destruction of faith caused by a bishop-predator – lost vocations, priests who in turn repeated the abuse, episcopal appointments distorted by pathological ties – were all only a minor problem.

[…] It was deliberately ignored that what permitted McCarrick’s irresistible rise is a system of power also known as the gay lobby, which favors the appointment and career of bishops with certain characteristics. […]

No, there really is no sign at all that the Church has learned anything from the McCarrick afair; there is rather the sense that one person was made to pay so that others could quietly continue. And in the meantime advancing the idea that if a priest has homosexual tendencies, it’s no problem.

In this grotesque farce, which is now cloaked in a false semblance of legalism, there is no hesitation to drag the entire Church through the mud – its prestige before the world, its authority over the faithful – in order to save the now-compromised image of corrupt, unworthy, depraved prelates. I limit myself to observing that even now, in the Vatican, Bergoglio still surrounds himself with notorious homosexuals and people with gravely compromised reputations. This is the most blatant disavowal of Bergoglio’s supposed moralizing work.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Original Source: The Remnant Newspaper

Ofcial Translation by Diane Montagna

______

November 10, 2020 Initial Response to McCarrick Report

Today the ofcial Report of the Holy See regarding the McCarrick case has been made public. Before I express myself on its merit, I will take time to analyze its content.

However, I cannot fail to note the surreal operation of mystifcation regarding who are the ones responsible for covering up the scandals of the deposed American cardinal, and at

29 the same time I cannot help expressing my indignation in seeing the same accusations of cover up being made against me, when in fact I repeatedly denounced the inaction of the Holy See in the face of the gravity of the accusations concerning McCarrick’s conduct.

An unprejudiced commentator would note the more than suspicious timing of the report’s publication, as well as the attempt to throw discredit upon me, accused of disobedience and negligence by those who have every interest in delegitimizing the one who brought to light an unparalleled network of corruption and immorality. The efrontery and fraudulent character shown on this occasion would seem to require, at this point, that we call this suggestive reconstruction of the facts “The Viganò Report,” sparing the reader the unpleasant surprise of seeing reality adulterated once again. But this would have required intellectual honesty, even before love for justice and the truth.

Unlike many characters involved in this story, I do not have any reason to fear that the truth will contradict my denunciations, nor am I in any way blackmailable. Anyone who launches unfounded accusations with the sole purpose of distracting the attention of public opinion will have the bitter surprise of fnding that the operation conducted against me will not have any efect, other than giving further proof of the corruption and bad faith of those who for too long have been silent, made denials, and turned their gaze elsewhere, who today must be held accountable. The Vatican fction continues.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop Original Source: The Remnant Newspaper

______

November 8, 2020 Letter on Biden, Covid, and the USCCB

The world in which we fnd ourselves living is, to use an expression from the Gospel, “in se divisum” (Mt 12:25). This division, it seems to me, consists of a split between reality and fction: objective reality on one side, and the fction of the media on the other. This certainly applies to the pandemic, which has been used as a tool of social engineering that is instrumental to the Great Reset, but it applies even more to the surreal American political situation, in which the evidence of a colossal electoral fraud is being censored by the media, which now proclaims Joe Biden’s victory as an accomplished fact.

The reality of Covid is blatantly in contrast with what the mainstream media wants us to believe, but this is not enough to dismantle the grotesque castle of falsehoods to which the majority of the population conforms with resignation. In a similar way, the reality of electoral fraud, of blatant violations of the rules and the systematic falsifcation of the results contrasts with the narrative given to us by the information giants, who say that Joe Biden is the new President of the United States, period. And so it must be: there are no alternatives, either to the supposed devastating fury of a seasonal fu that caused the same number of deaths as last year, or to the inevitability of the election of a candidate who is corrupt and subservient to the deep state. In fact, Biden has already promised to

30 restore the lockdown.

Reality no longer matters: it is absolutely irrelevant when it stands between the conceived plan and its realization. Covid and Biden are two holograms, two artifcial creations, ready to be adapted time and time again to contingent needs or respectively replaced when necessary with Covid-21 and Kamala Harris. The accusations of irresponsibility thrown at Trump supporters for holding rallies vanish as soon as Biden’s supporters gather in the streets, as has already happened for BLM demonstrations. What is criminal for some people is permitted for others: without explanations, without logic, without rationality. The mere fact of being on the left, of voting for Biden, of putting on the mask is a pass to do anything, while simply being on the right, voting for Trump or questioning the efectiveness of masks is sufcient reason for condemnation and an execution that does not require any evidence or a trial: they are ipso facto labeled as fascists, sovereignists, populists, deniers – and those labeled with these social stigmas are supposed to simply silently withdraw.

We thus return to that division between good people and evil people, that is ridiculed when it is used by one side – ours – and conversely held up as an incontestable postulate when used by our adversaries. We have seen this with the contemptuous comments responding to my words about the “children of Light” and the “children of darkness,” as if my “apocalyptic tones” were the fruit of a ravingly mad mind and not the simple observation of reality. But by disdainfully rejecting this Biblical division of humanity, they have actually confrmed it, restricting to themselves alone the right to give the stamp of social, political, and religious legitimacy.

They are the good ones, even if they support the killing of the innocent – and we are supposed to get over it. They are the ones supporting democracy, even if in order to win elections they must always resort to deception and fraud – even fraud that is blatantly evident. They are the defenders of freedom, even if they deprive us of it day after day. They are objective and honest, even if their corruption and their crimes are now obvious even to the blind. The dogma that they despise and deride in others is indisputable and incontrovertible when it is they who promote it.

But as I have said previously, they are forgetting a small detail, a particular that they cannot understand: the Truth exists in itself; it exists regardless of whether there is someone who believes it, because the Truth possesses in itself, ontologically, its own reason for validity. The Truth cannot be denied because it is an attribute of God; it is God Himself. And everything that is true participates in this primacy over lies. We can thus be theologically and philosophically certain that these deceptions’ hours are numbered, because it will be enough to shine light on them to make them collapse. Light and darkness, precisely. So let us allow light to be shed on the deceptions of Biden and the Democrats, without taking even one step back: the fraud that they have plotted against President Trump and against America will not remain standing for long, nor will the worldwide fraud of Covid, the responsibility of the Chinese dictatorship, the complicity of the corrupt and traitors, and the enslavement of the deep church. Tout se tient[Everything fts together].

In this panorama of systematically constructed lies, spread by the media with a disturbing

31 impudence, the election of Joe Biden is not only desired, but is considered indispensable and therefore true and therefore defnitive. Even though the vote counts are not completed; even though the vote verifcations and recounts are only just beginning; even though the lawsuits alleging fraud have only just been fled. Biden must become President, because they have already decided it: the vote of the American people is valid only if it ratifes this narrative – otherwise, it is “reinterpreted,” dismissed as plebiscite drift, populism, and fascism.

It is therefore not surprising that the Democrats have such coarse and violent enthusiasm for their candidate in pectore, nor that the media and the ofcial commentators have such uncontainable satisfaction, nor that political leaders from around the world are expressing their support and sycophantic subjection to the deep state. We are watching a race to see who can arrive frst, elbowing and sprawling to show of, so that they can be seen to have always believed in the crushing victory of the Democratic puppet.

But if we understand that the sycophancy of world heads of state and party secretaries is simply a part of the trite script of the global Left, we are frankly left quite disturbed by the declarations of the United States’ Conference of Catholic Bishops, immediately republished by Vatican News, which with disturbing cross-eyedness credits itself with having supported “the second Catholic President in the history of the United States,” apparently forgetting the not-negligible detail that Biden is avidly pro-abortion, a supporter of LGBT ideology and of anti-Catholic globalism. The Archbishop of Los Angeles, José H. Gomez, profaning the memory of the Cristeros martyrs of his native country, says bluntly: “The American people have spoken.”

The frauds that have been denounced and widely proven matter little: the annoying formality of the vote of the people, albeit adulterated in a thousand ways, must now be considered to be concluded in favor of the standard-bearer of aligned, mainstream thought. We have read, not without retching, the posts of James Martin, S.J., and all those courtiers who are pawing to get on Biden’s chariot in order to share in his ephemeral triumph. Those who disagree, those who ask for clarity, those who have recourse to the law to see their rights protected do not have any legitimacy and must be silent, resign themselves, and disappear. Or rather: they must be “united” with the exultant choir, applaud and smile. Those who do not accept are threatening democracy and must be ostracized. As may be seen, there are still two sides, but this time they are legitimate and indisputable because it is they who impose them.

It is indicative that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Planned Parenthood are both expressing their satisfaction for the presumed electoral victory of the same person. This unanimity of consensus recalls the enthusiastic support of the Masonic Lodges on the occasion of the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, which was also not free from the shadow of fraud within the Conclave and was equally desired by the deep state, as we know clearly from the emails of John Podesta and the ties of Theodore McCarrick and his colleagues with the Democrats and with Biden himself. A very nice little group of cronies, no doubt about it.

With these words of the USCCB the pactum sceleris [plot to commit a crime] between

32 the deep state and the deep church is confrmed and sealed, the enslavement of the highest levels of the Catholic hierarchy to the New World Order, denying the teaching of Christ and the doctrine of the Church. Taking note of this is the frst, imperative step in order to understand the complexity of the present events and consider them in a supernatural, eschatological perspective. We know, indeed we frmly believe, that Christ, the one true Light of the world, has already conquered the darkness that obscures it. American Catholics must multiply their prayers and beg the Lord for a special protection for the President of the United States. I ask priests, especially during these days, to recite the Exorcism against Satan and the apostate angels, and to celebrate the Votive Mass Pro Defensione ab hostibus. Let us confdently ask for the intervention of the Blessed Virgin Mary, to whose Immaculate Heart we consecrate the United States of America and the entire world.

Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Original Source: LifeSite News

November 4, 2020

Letter to American Catholics and Americans of Good Will

Dear Brothers and Sisters, As devout Christians and faithful citizens of the United States of America, you have intense and heartfelt concern for the fate of your beloved country while the fnal results of the Presidential election are still uncertain.

News of electoral fraud is multiplying, despite the shameful attempts of the mainstream media to censor the truth of the facts in order to give their candidate the advantage.

There are states in which the number of votes is greater than the number of voters; others in which the mail-in vote seems to be exclusively in favor of Joe Biden; others in which the counting of ballots has been suspended for no reason or where sensational tampering has been discovered: always and only against President Donald J. Trump, always and only in favor of Biden.

In truth, for months now we have been witnessing a continuous trickle of staggered news, of manipulated or censored information, of crimes that have been silenced or covered up in the face of striking evidence and irrefutable testimony. We have seen the deep state organize itself, well in advance, to carry out the most colossal electoral fraud in history, in order to ensure the defeat of the man who has strenuously opposed the establishment of the New World Order that is wanted by the children of darkness. In this battle, you have not failed, as is your sacred duty, to make your own contribution by taking the side of the Good. Others, enslaved by vices or blinded by infernal hatred against Our Lord, have taken the side of Evil.

33 Do not think that the children of darkness act with honesty, and do not be scandalized if they operate with deception. Do you perhaps believe that Satan’s followers are honest, sincere, and loyal? The Lord has warned us against the Devil: “He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies” (Jn 8:44). In these hours, while the gates of Hell seem to prevail, allow me to address myself to you with an appeal, which I trust that you will respond to promptly and with generosity. I ask you to make an act of trust in God, an act of humility and flial devotion to The Lord of Armies. I ask that all of you pray the Holy Rosary, if possible in your families or with your dear ones, your friends, your brothers and sisters, your colleagues, your fellow soldiers. Pray with the abandonment of children who know how to have recourse to their Most Holy Mother to ask her to intercede before the throne of the Divine Majesty. Pray with a sincere soul, with a pure heart, in the certainty of being heard and answered. Ask her – she who is the Help of Christians, Auxilium Christianorum – to defeat the forces of the Enemy; ask her – she who is terrible as an army set in battle array (Song 6:10) – to grant the victory to the forces of Good and to infict a humiliating defeat on the forces of Evil. Have your children pray, using the holy words that you have taught them: those confdent prayers will rise to God and will not remain unheard. Have the elderly and sick pray, so that they may ofer their suferings in union with the suferings that Our Lord sufered on the Cross when he shed His Precious Blood for Our Redemption. Have young ladies and women pray, so that they turn to her who is the model of purity and motherhood. And you, men, must also pray: your courage, your honor and your boldness will be refreshed and strengthened. All of you, take up this spiritual weapon, before which Satan and his minions retreat furiously, because they fear the Most Holy Virgin, she who is Almighty by Grace, even more than Almighty God.

Do not allow yourselves to be discouraged by the deceptions of the Enemy, even more so in this terrible hour in which the impudence of lying and fraud dares to challenge Heaven. Our adversaries’ hours are numbered if you will pray, if we will all pray with Faith and with the true ardor of Charity. May the Lord grant that one single devout and faithful voice rise from your homes, your churches, and your streets! This voice will not remain unheard, because it will be the voice of a people that cries out, in the moment when the storm rages most fercely, “Save us, Lord, we are perishing!” (Mt 8:25).

The days that await us are a precious occasion for all of you, and for those who unite themselves spiritually to you from every part of the world. You have the honor and privilege of being able to participate in the victory of this spiritual battle, to wield the powerful weapon of the Holy Rosary as our fathers did at Lepanto to repel the enemy armies.

Pray with the certainty of Our Lord’s promise: “Ask and it shall be given unto you, seek and you shall fnd, knock and the door shall be opened unto you” (Lk 11:9). The King of Kings, from whom you ask the salvation of your Nation, will reward your Faith. Your testimony, remember this, will touch the heart of Our Lord, multiplying the heavenly Graces which are, more than ever, indispensable in order to achieve victory.

May my appeal, which I address to you and to all people who recognize the Lordship of God, fnd you to be generous apostles and courageous witnesses of the spiritual rebirth

34 of your beloved country, and with it the entire world. Non praevalebunt.

God bless and protect the United States of America! One Nation under God

Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop Former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America

Original Source: The Remnant Newspaper

______

October 25, 2020

Letter #2 to President Donald Trump

Mister President, Allow me to address you at this hour in which the fate of the whole world is being threatened by a global conspiracy against God and humanity. I write to you as an Archbishop, as a Successor of the Apostles, as the former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America. I am writing to you in the midst of the silence of both civil and religious authorities. May you accept these words of mine as the “voice of one crying out in the desert” (Jn 1:23).

As I said when I wrote my letter to you in June, this historical moment sees the forces of Evil aligned in a battle without quarter against the forces of Good; forces of Evil that appear powerful and organized as they oppose the children of Light, who are disoriented and disorganized, abandoned by their temporal and spiritual leaders.

Daily we sense the attacks multiplying of those who want to destroy the very basis of society: the natural family, respect for human life, love of country, freedom of education and business. We see heads of nations and religious leaders pandering to this suicide of Western culture and its Christian soul, while the fundamental rights of citizens and believers are denied in the name of a health emergency that is revealing itself more and more fully as instrumental to the establishment of an inhuman faceless tyranny. A global plan called the Great Reset is underway. Its architect is a global élite that wants to subdue all of humanity, imposing coercive measures with which to drastically limit individual freedoms and those of entire populations. In several nations this plan has already been approved and fnanced; in others it is still in an early stage. Behind the world leaders who are the accomplices and executors of this infernal project, there are unscrupulous characters who fnance the World Economic Forum and Event 201, promoting their agenda.

The purpose of the Great Reset is the imposition of a health dictatorship aiming at the imposition of liberticidal measures, hidden behind tempting promises of ensuring a universal income and cancelling individual debt. The price of these concessions from the

35 International Monetary Fund will be the renunciation of private property and adherence to a program of vaccination against Covid-19 and Covid-21 promoted by Bill Gates with the collaboration of the main pharmaceutical groups. Beyond the enormous economic interests that motivate the promoters of the Great Reset, the imposition of the vaccination will be accompanied by the requirement of a health passport and a digital ID, with the consequent contact tracing of the population of the entire world. Those who do not accept these measures will be confned in detention camps or placed under house arrest, and all their assets will be confscated.

Mr. President, I imagine that you are already aware that in some countries the Great Resetwill be activated between the end of this year and the frst trimester of 2021. For this purpose, further lockdowns are planned, which will be ofcially justifed by a supposed second and third wave of the pandemic. You are well aware of the means that have been deployed to sow panic and legitimize draconian limitations on individual liberties, artfully provoking a world-wide economic crisis. In the intentions of its architects, this crisis will serve to make the recourse of nations to the Great Reset irreversible, thereby giving the fnal blow to a world whose existence and very memory they want to completely cancel. But this world, Mr. President, includes people, afections, institutions, faith, culture, traditions, and ideals: people and values that do not act like automatons, who do not obey like machines, because they are endowed with a soul and a heart, because they are tied together by a spiritual bond that draws its strength from above, from that God that our adversaries want to challenge, just as Lucifer did at the beginning of time with his “non serviam.”

Many people – as we well know – are annoyed by this reference to the clash between Good and Evil and the use of “apocalyptic” overtones, which according to them exasperates spirits and sharpens divisions. It is not surprising that the enemy is angered at being discovered just when he believes he has reached the citadel he seeks to conquer undisturbed. What is surprising, however, is that there is no one to sound the alarm. The reaction of the deep state to those who denounce its plan is broken and incoherent, but understandable. Just when the complicity of the mainstream media had succeeded in making the transition to the New World Order almost painless and unnoticed, all sorts of deceptions, scandals and crimes are coming to light.

Until a few months ago, it was easy to smear as “conspiracy theorists” those who denounced these terrible plans, which we now see being carried out down to the smallest detail. No one, up until last February, would ever have thought that, in all of our cities, citizens would be arrested simply for wanting to walk down the street, to breathe, to want to keep their business open, to want to go to church on Sunday. Yet now it is happening all over the world, even in picture-postcard Italy that many Americans consider to be a small enchanted country, with its ancient monuments, its churches, its charming cities, its characteristic villages. And while the politicians are barricaded inside their palaces promulgating decrees like Persian satraps, businesses are failing, shops are closing, and people are prevented from living, traveling, working, and praying. The disastrous psychological consequences of this operation are already being seen, beginning with the suicides of desperate entrepreneurs and of our children, segregated from friends and classmates, told to follow their classes while sitting at home alone in front of a computer.

36 In Sacred Scripture, Saint Paul speaks to us of “the one who opposes” the manifestation of the mystery of iniquity, the kathèkon (2 Thess 2:6-7). In the religious sphere, this obstacle to evil is the Church, and in particular the papacy; in the political sphere, it is those who impede the establishment of the New World Order.

As is now clear, the one who occupies the Chair of Peter has betrayed his role from the very beginning in order to defend and promote the globalist ideology, supporting the agenda of the deep church, who chose him from its ranks.

Mr. President, you have clearly stated that you want to defend the nation – One Nation under God, fundamental liberties, and non-negotiable values that are denied and fought against today. It is you, dear President, who are “the one who opposes” the deep state, the fnal assault of the children of darkness.

For this reason, it is necessary that all people of good will be persuaded of the epochal importance of the imminent election: not so much for the sake of this or that political program, but because of the general inspiration of your action that best embodies – in this particular historical context – that world, our world, which they want to cancel by means of the lockdown. Your adversary is also our adversary: it is the Enemy of the human race, He who is “a murderer from the beginning” (Jn 8:44).

Around you are gathered with faith and courage those who consider you the fnal garrison against the world dictatorship. The alternative is to vote for a person who is manipulated by the deep state, gravely compromised by scandals and corruption, who will do to the United States what Jorge Mario Bergoglio is doing to the Church, Prime Minister Conte to Italy, President Macron to France, Prime Minster Sanchez to Spain, and so on. The blackmailable nature of Joe Biden – just like that of the prelates of the Vatican’s “magic circle” – will expose him to be used unscrupulously, allowing illegitimate powers to interfere in both domestic politics as well as international balances. It is obvious that those who manipulate him already have someone worse than him ready, with whom they will replace him as soon as the opportunity arises.

And yet, in the midst of this bleak picture, this apparently unstoppable advance of the “Invisible Enemy,” an element of hope emerges. The adversary does not know how to love, and it does not understand that it is not enough to assure a universal income or to cancel mortgages in order to subjugate the masses and convince them to be branded like cattle. This people, which for too long has endured the abuses of a hateful and tyrannical power, is rediscovering that it has a soul; it is understanding that it is not willing to exchange its freedom for the homogenization and cancellation of its identity; it is beginning to understand the value of familial and social ties, of the bonds of faith and culture that unite honest people. This Great Reset is destined to fail because those who planned it do not understand that there are still people ready to take to the streets to defend their rights, to protect their loved ones, to give a future to their children and grandchildren. The leveling inhumanity of the globalist project will shatter miserably in the face of the frm and courageous opposition of the children of Light. The enemy has Satan on its side, He who only knows how to hate. But on our side, we have the Lord Almighty,

37 the God of armies arrayed for battle, and the Most Holy Virgin, who will crush the head of the ancient Serpent. “If God is for us, who can be against us?” (Rom 8:31).

Mr. President, you are well aware that, in this crucial hour, the United States of America is considered the defending wall against which the war declared by the advocates of globalism has been unleashed. Place your trust in the Lord, strengthened by the words of the Apostle Paul: “I can do all things in Him who strengthens me” (Phil 4:13). To be an instrument of Divine Providence is a great responsibility, for which you will certainly receive all the graces of state that you need, since they are being fervently implored for you by the many people who support you with their prayers.

With this heavenly hope and the assurance of my prayer for you, for the First Lady, and for your collaborators, with all my heart I send you my blessing.

God bless the United States of America!

Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop Tit. Archbishop of Ulpiana Former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America

Original Source: LifeSite News

October 24, 2020 Catholic Identity Conference: Vatican II & the New World Order

The following is a transcript of Archbishop Viganò's talk from the 2020 Catholic Identity Conference. You can watch the full video of his remarks here.

Title: How the Revolution of Vatican II Serves the New World Order

1. WE LIVE IN EXTRAORDINARY TIMES As each of us has probably understood, we fnd ourselves in an historical moment in time; events of the past, which once seemed disconnected, prove now to be unequivocally connected, both in the principles that inspire them and in the goals they seek to achieve.

A fair and objective look at the current situation cannot help but grasp the perfect coherence between the evolution of the global political framework and the role that the Catholic Church has assumed in the establishment of the New World Order. To be more precise, one should speak about the role of that apparent majority in the Church, which is actually small in number but extremely powerful, and which, for brevity’s sake, I will

38 summarize as the deep church.

Obviously, there are not two Churches, something that would be impossible, blasphemous, and heretical. Nor has the one true Church of Christ today failed in her mission, perverting herself into a sect. The Church of Christ has nothing to do with those who, for the past sixty years, have executed a plan to occupy her. The overlap between the Catholic Hierarchy and the members of the deep church is not a theological fact, but rather a historical reality that defes the usual categories and, as such, must be analyzed. We know that the New World Order project consists in the establishment of tyranny by Freemasonry: a project that dates back to the French Revolution, the Age of Enlightenment, the end of the Catholic Monarchies, and the declaration of war on the Church. We can say that the New World Order is the antithesis of Christian society, it would be the realization of the diabolical Civitas Diaboli – City of the Devil – opposed to the Civitas Dei – City of God – in the eternal struggle between Light and Darkness, Good and Evil, God and Satan.

In this struggle, Providence has placed the Church of Christ, and in particular the Supreme Pontif, as kathèkon – that is, the one who opposes the manifestation of the mystery of iniquity (2 Thess 2:6-7). And Sacred Scripture warns us that at the manifestation of the Antichrist, this obstacle – the kathèkon – will have ceased to exist. It seems quite evident to me that the end times are now approaching before our eyes, since the mystery of iniquity has spread throughout the world with the disappearance of the courageous opposition of the kathèkon.

With regard to the incompatibility between the City of God and the City of Satan, the Jesuit advisor to Francis, Antonio Spadaro, sets aside Sacred Scripture and Tradition, making the Bergoglian embrassons-nous his own. According to the Director of La Civiltà Cattolica, the Encyclical Fratelli Tutti.1

“also remains a message with a strong political value, because – we could say – it overturns the logic of the apocalypse that prevails today. It is the fundamentalist logic that fghts against the world, because it believes that it is the opposite of God, that is, an idol, and therefore to be destroyed as soon as possible in order to accelerate the end of time. The abyss of the apocalypse, in fact, before which there are no more brothers: only apostates or martyrs running “against” time. [...] We are not militants or apostates, but all brothers.”

This strategy of discrediting the interlocutor with the slur of “integralist” is evidently aimed at facilitating the action of the enemy within the Church, seeking to disarm the opposition and discourage dissent. We also fnd it in the civil sphere, where the democrats and the deep state arrogate to themselves the right to decide whom to grant political legitimacy and whom to condemn without appeal to media ostracism. The method is always the same, because the one inspiring is the same. Just as the falsifcation of History and of the sources, is always the same: if the past disavows the revolutionary narrative, the followers of the Revolution censor the past and replace historical fact with a myth. Even St. Francis is a victim of this adulteration that would have him be the standard-bearer of poverty and pacifsm, that are as alien to the spirit of Catholic orthodoxy as they are instrumental to the dominant ideology. Proof of this is the last, fraudulent recourse to the Poverello of Assisi in Fratelli Tutti to justify dialogue, ecumenism, and the universal brotherhood of the

39 Bergoglian anti-church.

Let us not make the mistake of presenting the current events as “normal,” judging what happens with the legal, canonical, and sociological parameters that such normality would presuppose. In extraordinary times – and the present crisis in the Church is indeed extraordinary – events go beyond the ordinary known to our fathers. In extraordinary times, we can hear a Pope deceive the faithful; see Princes of the Church accused of crimes that in other times would have aroused horror and been met with severe punishment; witness in our churches liturgical rites that seem to have been invented by Cranmer’s perverse mind; see Prelates process the unclean idol of the pachamama into St. Peter’s Basilica; and hear the Vicar of Christ apologize to the worshippers of that simulacrum if a Catholic dares to throw it into the Tiber. In these extraordinary times, we hear a conspirator – Cardinal Godfried Danneels – tell us that, since the death of John Paul II, the Mafa of St. Gallen had been plotting to elect one of their own to Peter’s Chair, which later turned out to be Jorge Mario Bergoglio. In the face of this disconcerting revelation, we might well be astonished that neither Cardinals nor Bishops expressed their indignation nor asked that the truth be brought to light.

The coexistence of good and evil, of saints and the damned, in the ecclesial body, has always accompanied the earthly events of the Church, beginning with the betrayal of the Judas Iscariot. And it is indeed signifcant that the anti-church tries to rehabilitate Judas – and with him the worst heresiarchs – as exemplary models, “anti-saints” and “anti- martyrs,” and thereby legitimizing themselves in their own heresies, immorality and vices. The coexistence – I was saying – of the good and the wicked, of which the Gospel speaks in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares, seems to have morphed into the prevalence of the latter over the former. The diference is that vice and deviations once despised are today not only practiced and tolerated more, but even encouraged and praised, while virtue and fdelity to the teaching of Christ are despised, mocked and even condemned.

2. THE ECLIPSE OF THE TRUE CHURCH For sixty years, we have witnessed the eclipse of the true Church by an anti-church that has progressively appropriated her name, occupied the Roman Curia and her Dicasteries, Dioceses and Parishes, Seminaries and Universities, Convents and Monasteries. The anti- church has usurped her authority, and its ministers wear her sacred garments; it uses her prestige and power to appropriate her treasures, assets, and fnances.

Just as happens in nature, this eclipse does not take place all at once; it passes from light to darkness when a celestial body inserts itself between the sun and us. This is a relatively slow but inexorable process, in which the moon of the anti-church follows its orbit until it overlaps the sun, generating a cone of shadow that projects over the earth. We now fnd ourselves in this doctrinal, moral, liturgical, and disciplinary cone of shadow. It is not yet the total eclipse that we will see at the end of time, under the reign of the Antichrist. But it is a partial eclipse, which lets us see the luminous crown of the sun encircling the black disk of the moon.

The process that led to today’s eclipse of the Church began with Modernism, without a doubt. The anti-church followed its orbit despite the solemn condemnations of the Magisterium, which in that phase shone with the splendor of Truth. But with the Second

40 Vatican Council, the darkness of this spurious entity came over the Church. Initially it obscured only a small part, but the darkness gradually increased. Whoever then pointed to the sun, deducing that the moon would certainly obscure it, was accused of being a “prophet of doom,” with those forms of fanaticism and intemperance that arise from ignorance and prejudice. The case of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and a few other Prelates confrms, on the one hand, the far-sightedness of these shepherds and, on the other hand, the disjointed reaction of their adversaries; who, out of fear of losing power, used all their authority to deny the evidence and kept hidden their own true intentions. To continue the analogy: we can say that, in the sky of the Faith, an eclipse is a rare and extraordinary phenomenon. But to deny that, during the eclipse, darkness spreads – just because this does not happen under ordinary conditions – is not a sign of faith in the indefectibility of the Church, but rather an obstinate denial of the evidence, or bad faith. The Holy Church, according to Christ’s promises, will never be overwhelmed by the gates of hell, but that does not mean that she will not be – or is not already – overshadowed by her infernal forgery, that moon which, not by chance, we see under the feet of the Woman of the Revelation: “A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (Rev 12:1).

The moon lies under the feet of the Woman who is above all mutability, above all earthly corruption, above the law of fate and the kingdom of the spirit of this world. And this is because that Woman, who is at once the image of Mary Most Holy and of the Church, is amicta sole, clothed with the Sun of Righteousness that is Christ, “exempted from all demonic power as she takes part in the mystery of the immutability of Christ” (Saint Ambrose). She remains unbruised if not in her militant kingdom, certainly in the sufering one in Purgatory and in the triumphant one in Paradise. St. Jerome, commenting on the words of Scripture, reminds us that “the gates of hell are sins and vices, especially the teachings of heretics.” We know therefore that even the “synthesis of all heresies” represented by Modernism and its updated conciliar version, can never defnitively obscure the splendor of the Bride of Christ, but only for the brief period of the eclipse that Providence, in its infnite wisdom, has allowed, to draw from it a greater good.

3. THE ABANDONMENT OF THE SUPERNATURAL DIMENSION In this talk, I wish especially to deal with the relationship between the revolution of Vatican II and the establishment of the New World Order. The focal element of this analysis consists in highlighting the abandonment on the part of the ecclesiastical Hierarchy, even at the top, of the supernatural dimension of the Church and its eschatological role. With the Council, the Innovators erased the divine origin of the Church from their theological horizon, creating an entity of human origin similar to a philanthropic organization.

The frst consequence of this ontological subversion was the necessary denial of the fact that the Bride of Christ is not, and cannot be, subject to change by those who exercise vicarious authority in the name of the Lord. She is neither the property of the Pope nor of the Bishops or theologians, and, as such, any attempt at “Aggiornamento” lowers her to the level of a company that, in order to garner proft, renews its own commercial ofer, sells its leftovers stock, and follows the fashion of the moment. The Church, on the other hand, is a supernatural and divine reality: she adapts the way she preaches the Gospel to the nations, but she can never change the content of a single iota (Mt 5:18), nor deny her

41 transcendent momentum by lowering herself to mere social service. On the opposite side, the anti-church proudly lays claims to the right to perform a paradigm shift not only by changing the way doctrine is expounded, but the doctrine itself. [This is confrmed by the words of Massimo Fagggioli comment on the new Encyclical Fratelli Tutti:

“Pope Francis’ pontifcate is like a standard lifted up before Catholic integralists and those who equate material continuity and tradition: Catholic doctrine does not just develop. Sometimes it really changes: for example on [the] death penalty, [and] war.”2

Insisting on what the Magisterium teaches is useless. The Innovators’ brazen claim to have the right to change the Faith stubbornly follows the modernist approach.

The Council’s frst error consists mainly in the lack of a transcendent perspective – the result of a spiritual crisis that was already latent – and in the attempt to establish paradise on earth, with a sterile human horizon. In line with this approach, Fratelli tutti sees the fulfllment of an earthly utopia and social redemption in human brotherhood, pax œcumenica between religions and welcoming migrants.

4. THE SENSE OF INFERIORITY AND INADEQUACY As I have written on other occasions, the revolutionary demands of the Nouvelle Théologie found fertile ground in the Council Fathers because of a serious inferiority complex vis-à-vis the world. There was a time, in the postwar period, when the revolution led by Freemasonry in the civil, political and cultural spheres, breached the Catholic élite, persuading it of its inadequacy in the face of an epochal challenge that is now inescapable. Instead of questioning themselves and their faith, this élite – bishops, theologians, intellectuals – recklessly attributed responsibility for the imminent failure of the Church to her rock-solid hierarchical structure, and to her monolithic doctrinal and moral teaching. Looking at the defeat of the European civilization that the Church had helped to form, the élite thought that the lack of agreement with the world was caused by the intransigence of the Papacy and the moral rigidity of priests not wanting to come to terms with the Zeitgeist, and “open up.”

This ideological approach stems from the false assumption that, between the Church and the contemporary world, there can be an alliance, a consonance of intent, a friendship. Nothing could be further from the truth, since there can be no respite in the struggle between God and Satan, between Light and Darkness. “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Gen 3:15). This is an enmity willed by God Himself, which places Mary Most Holy – and the Church – as eternal enemies of the ancient serpent. The world has its own prince (Jn 12:31), who is the “enemy” (Mt 13:28), a “murderer from the beginning” (Jn 8:44) and a “liar” (Jn 8:44). Courting a pact of non-belligerence with the world means coming to terms with Satan. This overturns and perverts the very essence of the Church, whose mission is to convert as many souls to Christ for the greater glory of God, without ever laying down arms against those who want to attract them to themselves and to damnation.

The Church’s sense of inferiority and failure before the world created the “perfect storm” for the revolution to take root in the Council Fathers and by extension in the Christian

42 people, in whom obedience to the Hierarchy had been cultivated perhaps more than fdelity to the depositum fdei. Let me it be clear: obedience to the Sacred Pastors is certainly praiseworthy if the commands are legitimate. But obedience ceases to be a virtue and, in fact, becomes servility if it is an end in itself and if it contradicts the purpose to which it is ordained, namely Faith and Morals.

We should add, that this sense of inferiority was introduced into the ecclesial body with displays of great theater, such as the removal of the tiara by Paul VI, the return of the Ottoman fagship banners conquered at Lepanto, the faunted ecumenical embraces with the schismatic Athenagoras, the requests for forgiveness for the Crusades, the abolition of the Index, the Clergy’s focus on the poor in place to the alleged triumphalism of Pius XII. The coup de grâce of this attitude was codifed in the Reformed Liturgy, which manifests its embarrassment of Catholic dogma by silencing it – and thus denying it indirectly. The ritual change engendered a doctrinal change, which led the faithful to believe that the Mass is a simple fraternal banquet and that the Most Holy Eucharist is merely a symbol of Christ’s presence among us.

5. “IDEM SENTIRE” OF REVOLUTION AND COUNCIL The Council Fathers’ sense of inadequacy was only increased by the work of the Innovators, whose heretical ideas coincided with the demands of the world. A comparative analysis of modern thought confrms the idem sentire [same feeling or same mind] of the conspirators with every element of the revolutionary ideology:

- the acceptance of the democratic principle as the legitimizing source of power, in place of the divine right of the Catholic Monarchy (including the Papacy); - the creation and accumulation of organs of power, in place of personal responsibility and institutional hierarchy; - the erasure of the historical past, evaluated with today’s parameters, which fail to defend tradition and cultural heritage; - the emphasis on the freedom of individuals and the weakening of the concept of responsibility and duty; - the continuous evolution of morality and ethics, thus deprived of their immutable nature and of any transcendent reference; - the presumed secular nature of the State, in place of the rightful submission of civil order to the Kingship of Jesus Christ and the ontological superiority of the Church’s mission over that of the temporal sphere; - the equality of religions not only before the State, but even as a general concept to which the Church must conform, against the objective and necessary defense of the Truth and the condemnation of error; - the false and blasphemous concept of the dignity of man as connatural to him, based on the denial of original sin and of the need for Redemption as a premise for pleasing God, meriting His Grace and attaining eternal beatitude; - the undermining of the role of women, the contempt and a contempt for the privilege of motherhood; - the primacy of matter over spirit; - the fdeistic relationship with science3, in the face of a ruthless criticism of religion on false scientifc grounds. All these principles, propagated by Freemasonry ideologues and New World Order supporters, coincide with the revolutionary ideas of the Council:

43 - the democratization of the Church began with Lumen Gentium and today it is realized in the Bergoglian synodal path; - the creation and accumulation of organs of power has been achieved by delegating decision-making roles to Episcopal Conferences, Synods of Bishops, Commissions, Pastoral Councils, etc.; - the Church’s past and glorious traditions are judged according to the modern mentality and condemned in order to curry favor with the modern world; - the “freedom of the children of God” theorized by Vatican II has been established regardless of the moral duties of individuals who, according to the conciliar fairytales, are all saved regardless of their inner dispositions and the state of their soul; - the obfuscating of perennial moral references has led to the revised doctrine on capital punishment; and, with Amoris Laetitia, the admission of public adulterers to the Sacraments, cracking the sacramental edifce; - the adoption of the concept of secularism has led to the abolition of a State Religion in Catholic nations. Encouraged by the Holy See and the Episcopate, this has led to a loss of religious identity and the recognition of rights of sects, as well as the approval of norms that violate natural and divine law; - the religious freedom theorized in Dignitatis Humanae is today brought to its logical and extreme consequences with the Declaration of Abu Dhabi and the latest Encyclical Fratelli Tutti, rendering the saving mission of the Church and the Incarnation itself obsolete; - theories on human dignity in the Catholic sphere have led to confusion about the role of the laity with respect to the ministerial role of the Clergy and a weakening of the hierarchical structure of the Church. While the embrace of feminist ideology is a prelude to the admission of women to the Holy Orders; - an inordinate preoccupation with the temporal needs of the poor, so typical of the left, has transformed the Church into a sort of welfare association, limiting her activity to the mere material sphere, almost to the point of abandoning the spiritual; – subservience to modern science and technological progress has led the Church to disavow the “Queen of the Science” [Faith], to “demythologize” miracles, to deny the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, to look at the most sacred Mysteries of our Holy Religion as “myths” or “metaphors,” sacrilegiously suggesting that Transubstantiation and the Resurrection itself are “magic” (not to be taken literally but rather symbolically), and to describe the sublime Marian dogmas are “tonterias” [nonsense]. – There is an almost grotesque aspect of this leveling and dumbing down of the Hierarchy to comply with mainstream thought. The hierarchy’s desire to please its persecutors and serve its enemies always comes too late and is out of sync, giving the impression that the Bishops are irremediably outdated, indeed not in step with the times. They lead those who see them so enthusiastically conniving with their own extinction to believe that this demonstration of courtesan submission to politically correct comes not so much from a true ideological persuasion, but rather from the fear of being swept away, of losing power, and no longer having that prestige that the world still pays them, nonetheless. They do not realize – or do not want to admit – that the prestige and authority whose custodians they are, comes from the authority and prestige of the Church of Christ, and not from the miserable, pitiful counterfeit of her which they have fashioned.

44 When this anti-church is fully established in the total eclipse of the Catholic Church, the authority of its leaders will depend on the degree of subjugation to the New World Order, which will not tolerate any divergence from its own creed and will ruthlessly apply that dogmatism, fanaticism, and fundamentalism that many Prelates and self-styled intellectuals criticize in those who remain faithful to the Magisterium today. In this way, the deep church may continue to bear the trademark “Catholic Church,” but it will be the slave of the New Order thinking, reminiscent of the Jews who, after denying the Kingship of Christ before Pilate, were enslaved to the civil authority of their time: “We have no other king but Caesar” (Jn 19:15). Today’s Caesar commands us to close the churches, wear a mask, and suspend the celebrations under the pretext of a pseudo-pandemic. The communist regime persecutes the Chinese Catholics, and the world hears nothing but silence from Rome. Tomorrow a new Titus will sack the Council temple, transporting its remains to some museum, and divine vengeance at the hands of the pagans will have been achieved once again.

6. THE INSTRUMENTAL ROLE OF THE MODERATE CATHOLICS IN THE REVOLUTION Some might say that the Council Fathers and Popes who presided over that assembly, did not realize the implications that their approval of the Vatican II documents would have for the future of the Church. If this were the case – i.e., if there had been any subsequent regrets in their hasty approval of heretical texts or texts close to heresy – it is difcult to understand why they were unable to put an immediate stop to abuses, correct errors, clarify misunderstandings and omissions. And above all, it is incomprehensible why the ecclesiastical Authority has been so ruthless against those who defended the Catholic Truth, and, at the same time, were so terribly accommodating to rebels and heretics. In any case, the responsibility for the conciliar crisis must be laid at the feet of the Authority which, even amid a thousand appeals to collegiality and pastoralism, has jealously guarded its prerogatives, exercising them only in one direction, that is, against the pusillus grex [little fock] and never against the enemies of God and of the Church. The very rare exceptions, when a heretic theologian or revolutionary religious has been censored by the Holy Ofce, only ofer tragic confrmation of a rule that has been enforced for decades; not to mention that many of them, in recent times, have been rehabilitated without any abjuration of their errors and even promoted to institutional positions in the Roman Curia or Pontifcal Athenaeums.

This is the reality, as it emerges from my analysis. However, we know that, in addition to the progressive wing of the Council and the traditional Catholic wing, there is a part of the Episcopate, the clergy, and the people that attempts to keep equal distance from what it considers two extremes. I am talking about the so-called “conservatives,” that is, a centrist part of the ecclesial body that ends up “carrying water” for the Revolutionaries because, while rejecting their excesses, it shares the same principles. The error of the “conservatives” lies in giving a negative connotation to traditionalism and in placing it on the opposite side of progressivism. Their aurea mediocritas [via media] consists in arbitrarily placing themselves not between two vices, but between virtue and vice. They are the ones who criticize the excesses of the pachamama or of the most extreme of Bergoglio’s statements, but who do not tolerate the Council’s being questioned, let alone the intrinsic link between the conciliar cancer and the current metastasis. The correlation between political conservatism and religious conservatism consists in adopting the

45 “center,” a synthesis between the “right” thesis and the “left” antithesis, according to the Hegelian approach so cherished by moderate supporters of the Council.

In the civil sphere, the deep state has managed political and social dissent by using organizations and movements that are only apparently opposition, but which are actually instrumental to maintaining power. Similarly, in the ecclesial sphere, the deep church uses the moderate “conservatives” to give an appearance of ofering freedom to the faithful. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontifcum itself, for example, while granting the celebration in the extraordinary form, demands saltem impliciter [at least implicitly] that we accept the Council and recognize the lawfulness of the reformed liturgy. This ploy prevents those who beneft from the Motu Proprio from raising any objection, or they risk the dissolution of the Ecclesia Dei communities. And it instills in the Christian people the dangerous idea that a good thing, in order to have legitimacy in the Church and society, must necessarily be accompanied by a bad thing or at least something less good. However, only a misguided mind would seek to aford equal rights to both good and evil. It matters little if one is personally in favor of good, when he recognizes the legitimacy of those who are in favor of evil. In this sense, the “freedom to choose” abortion theorized by democratic politicians fnds its counterbalance in the no less aberrant “religious freedom” theorized by the Council, which today is stubbornly defended by the anti- church. If it is not permissible for a Catholic to support a politician who defends the right to abortion, it is even less permissible to approve a Prelate who defends the “freedom” of an individual to endanger his immortal soul by “choosing” to remain in mortal sin. This is not mercy; this is gross dereliction of spiritual duty before God in order to curry the favor and approval of Man.

7. “OPEN SOCIETY” AND “OPEN RELIGION” This analysis would hardly be complete without a word on the neo-language so popular in the ecclesiastical sphere. Traditional Catholic vocabulary has been deliberately modifed, in order to change the content it expresses. The same has happened in the liturgy and preaching, where the clarity of the Catholic exposition has been replaced by ambiguity or the implicit denial of dogmatic truth. The examples are endless. This phenomenon also goes back to Vatican II, which sought to develop “Catholic” versions of the slogans of the world. Nevertheless, I would like to emphasize that all those expressions that are borrowed from secularist lexicons are also part of the neo-language. Let us consider the Bergoglio’s insistence on the “outgoing church,” on openness as a positive value. Similarly, I quote now from Fratelli tutti:

“A living and dynamic people, a people with a future, is one constantly open to a new synthesis through its ability to welcome diferences” (Fratelli Tutti, 160). “The Church is a home with open doors” (ibid. 276). “We want to be a Church that serves, that leaves home and goes forth from its places of worship, goes forth from its sacristies, in order to accompany life, to sustain hope, to be the sign of unity… to build bridges, to break down walls, to sow seeds of reconciliation” (ibid.).

The similarity with the Open Society sought after by Soros’ globalist ideology is so striking as to almost constitute an Open Religion counterpoint to it.

46 And this Open Religion is perfectly in tune with the intentions of globalism. From the political meetings “for a New Humanism” blessed by the leaders of the Church to the participation of the progressive intelligentsia in green propaganda, it all chases after the mainstream thought, in the sad and grotesque attempt to please the world. The stark contrast with the words of the Apostle is clear: “Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10).

The Catholic Church lives under the gaze of God; she exists for His glory and for the salvation of souls. The anti-church lives under the gaze of the world, pandering to the blasphemous apotheosis of man and the damnation of souls. During the last session of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, before all the Synod Fathers, these astonishing words of Paul VI resounded in the Vatican Basilica:

“The religion of the God who became man has met the religion (for such it is) of man who makes himself God. And what happened? Was there a clash, a battle, a condemnation? There could have been, but there was none. The old story of the Samaritan has been the model of the spirituality of the council. A feeling of boundless sympathy has permeated the whole of it. The attention of our council has been absorbed by the discovery of human needs (and these needs grow in proportion to the greatness which the son of the earth claims for himself). But we call upon those who term themselves modern humanists, and who have renounced the transcendent value of the highest realities, to give the council credit at least for one quality and to recognize our own new type of humanism: we, too, in fact, we more than any others, honor mankind.”4

This sympathy [– in the etymological sense of συμπάϑ εια, that is, participation in the sentiment of the other –] is the fgure of the Council and of the new religion (for such it is) of the anti-church. An anti-church born of the unclean union between the Church and the world, between the heavenly Jerusalem and hellish Babylon. Note well: the frst time a Pontif mentioned the “new humanism” was at the fnal session of Vatican II, and today we fnd it repeated as a mantra by those who consider it a perfect and coherent expression of the revolutionary mens [frame of mind] of the Council.5

Always in view of this communion of intent between the New World Order and the anti- church, we must remember the Global Compact on Education, a project designed by Bergoglio “to generate a change on a planetary scale, so that education is a creator of brotherhood, peace and justice. An even more urgent need in this time marked by the pandemic”6. Promoted in collaboration with the United Nations, this “process of formation in the relationship and culture of encounter also fnds space and value in the ‘common home’ with all creatures, since people, just as they are formed to the logic of communion and solidarity, are already working “to recover serene harmony with creation”, and to confgure the world as “a space of true brotherhood” (Gaudium et Spes, 37).”7 As can be seen, the ideological reference is always and only to Vatican II, because only from that moment on did the anti-church place man in the place of God, the creature in the place of the Creator.

The “new humanism” obviously has an environmental and ecological frame into which are

47 grafted both the Encyclical Laudato Sì and Green Theology – the “Church with an Amazonian face” of the 2019 Synod of Bishops, with its idolatrous worship of pachamama (mother earth) in the presence of the Roman Sanhedrin. The Church’s attitude during Covid-19 demonstrated, on the one hand, the hierarchy’s submission to the diktats of the State, in violation of the Libertas Ecclesiae, which the Pope should have frmly defended. It also put on display the denial of any supernatural meaning of the pandemic, replacing the righteous wrath of God ofended by the countless sins of humanity and nations with a more disturbing and destructive fury of Nature, ofended by the lack of respect for the environment. I would like to emphasize that attributing a personal identity to Nature, almost endowed with intellect and will, is a prelude to her divinization. We have already seen a sacrilegious prelude to this, under the very dome of St. Peter’s Basilica.

The bottom line is this: conformity on the part of the anti-church with the dominant ideology of the modern world establishes a real cooperation with powerful representatives of the deep state, starting with those working towards a “sustainable economy” involving Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Bill Gates, Jefrey Sachs, John Elkann, Gunter Pauli.8

It will be useful to remember that the sustainable economy also has implications for agriculture and the world of work in general. The deep state needs to secure low-cost labor through immigration, which at the same time contributes to the cancellation of the religious, cultural and linguistic identity of the nations involved. The deep church lends an ideological and pseudo-theological basis to this invasion plan, and at the same time guarantees a share in the lucrative business of hospitality. We can understand Bergoglio’s insistence on the theme of migrants, also reiterated in Fratelli Tutti:

“A xenophobic mentality of closure and self-restraint is spreading” (ibid. 39). “Migrations will constitute a founding element of the future of the world” (ibid. 40).

Bergoglio used the expression “founding element,” stating that it is not possible to hypothesize a future without migrations.

Allow me a brief word about the political situation in the United States on the eve of the presidential election. Fratelli Tutti seems to be a form of Vatican endorsement of the Democratic candidate, in clear opposition to Donald Trump, and come a few days after Francis refused to grant audience to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Rome. This confrms which side the children of light are on, and who the children of darkness are.

8. THE IDEOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF “BROTHERHOOD” The theme of brotherhood, an obsession for Bergoglio, fnds its frst formulation in Nostra Ætate and Dignitatis Humanae. The latest Encyclical, Fratelli Tutti, is the manifesto of this Masonic vision, in which the cry Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité replaced the Gospel, for the sake of a unity among men that leaves out God. Note that the Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together signed in Abu Dhabi on February 4, 2019 was proudly defended by Bergoglio with these words:

“From the Catholic point of view the document did not go one millimeter beyond the Second Vatican Council.”

48 Cardinal Miguel Ayuso Guixot, President of the Pontifcal Council for Interreligious Dialogue, comments in La Civiltà Cattolica:

“With the Council, the embankment gradually cracked and then broke: The river of dialogue has spread with the Council Declarations Nostra Ætate on the relationship between the Church and believers of other religions and Dignitatis Humanae on religious freedom, themes and documents that are closely linked to each other, and have allowed St. John Paul II to give life to meetings such as the World Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi on October 27, 1986 and Benedict XVI, twenty-fve years later, to make us live in the city of St. Francis the Day of Refection, Dialogue and Prayer for Peace and Justice in the World – Pilgrims of Truth, Pilgrims of Peace. Therefore, the Catholic Church’s commitment to interreligious dialogue, which opens the way to peace and fraternity, is part of her original mission and has its roots in the Council event.”9

Once again, the cancer of Vatican II confrms that it is at the origin of Bergoglian metastasis. The fl rouge [common thread] that unites the Council with the cult of the pachamama also passes through Assisi, as my Brother Athanasius Schneider rightly pointed out in his recent speech.10

And speaking of the anti-church, Bishop Fulton Sheen describes the Antichrist: “Since his religion will be brotherhood without the paternity of God, he will deceive even the elect.”11 We seem to see the prophecy of the venerable American Archbishop coming true before our eyes.

It is no surprise, therefore, that the infamous Grand Lodge of Spain, after having warmly congratulated its paladin raised to the Throne, has once again paid homage to Bergoglio with these words:

“The great principle of this initiatory school has not changed in three centuries: the construction of a universal brotherhood where human beings call themselves brothers to each other beyond their specifc beliefs, their ideologies, the color of their skin, their social extraction, their language, their culture or their nationality. This fraternal dream clashed with religious fundamentalism which, in the case of the Catholic Church, led to harsh texts condemning the tolerance of Freemasonry in the 19th century. Pope Francis’ latest encyclical shows how far the present Catholic Church is from its previous positions. In “Fratelli Tutti”, the pope embraced the Universal Brotherhood, the great principle of modern Freemasonry.”12

The reaction of the Grande Oriente of Italy is not dissimilar:

“These are the principles that Freemasonry has always pursued and guarded for the elevation of Humanity.”13

Austen Ivereigh, the hagiographer of Bergoglio, confrms with satisfaction this interpretation that a Catholic would rightly consider at least disturbing.14

49 I remember that in the masonic documents of the Alta Vendita, since the nineteenth century, an infltration of Free Masonry into the Church was planned:

“You, too, will fsh some friends and lead them to the feet of the Apostolic See. You will have preached revolution in Tiara and Cope, proceeded under the cross and banner, a revolution that will need only a little help to set the quarters of the world on fre.”15

9. THE SUBVERSION OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD Allow me to conclude this examination of the links between the Council and the present crisis by emphasizing a reversal that I consider extremely important and signifcant. I am referring the relationship of the individual layman and community of the faithful with God.

While in the Church of Christ the relationship of the soul with the Lord is eminently personal even when it is conveyed by the Sacred Minister in the liturgical action, in the conciliar church the community and the group relationship prevails. Think of their insistence in wanting to make the Baptism of a child, or the wedding of a married couple, “an act of the community”; or the impossibility of receiving holy Communion individually outside of Mass, and of the common practice of approaching Communion during Mass even without the necessary conditions. All of this is sanctioned on the basis of a Protestantized concept of participation in the Eucharistic banquet, from which no guest is excluded. Under this understanding of community, the person loses his individuality, losing himself in the anonymous community of the celebration.

So too, the relationship of the social body with God disappears in a personalism that eliminates the role of mediation of both the Church and the State. Individualization in the moral feld enters into this as well, where the rights and preferences of the individual become grounds for the eradication of social morality. This is done in the name of an “inclusiveness” that legitimates every vice and moral aberration. Society – understood as the union of several individuals aimed at the pursuit of a common goal – is divided into a multiplicity of individuals, each of whom has his own purpose. This is the result of an ideological upheaval that deserves to be analyzed in depth, because of its implications both in the ecclesial and civil spheres. It is evident, however, that the frst step of this revolution is to be found in the conciliar mens, beginning with the indoctrination of the Christian people constituted by the Reformed Liturgy, in which the individual merges into the assembly by depersonalizing himself, and the community devolves into a collection of individuals by losing their identity.

10. CAUSE AND EFFECT Philosophy teaches us that to a cause always corresponds a certain efect. We have seen that the actions carried out during Vatican II have had the desired efect, giving concrete form to that anthropological turning point which today has led to the apostasy of the anti- church and the eclipse of the true Church of Christ. We must therefore understand that, if we want to undo the harmful efects we see before us, it is necessary and indispensable to remove the factors that caused them. If this is our goal, it is clear that accepting – or even partially accepting – those revolutionary principles would make our eforts useless

50 and counterproductive. We must therefore be clear about the objectives to be achieved, ordering our action to the goals. But we must all be aware that in this work of restorationno exceptions to the principles are possible, precisely because failure to share them would prevent any chance of success.

Therefore, let us put aside, once and for all, the vain distinctions concerning the presumed goodness of the Council, the betrayal of the will of the Synod Fathers, the letter and spirit of Vatican II, the magisterial weight (or lack thereof) of its acts, and the hermeneutic of continuity versus that of rupture. The anti-church has used the label “Ecumenical Council” to give authority and legal force to its revolutionary agenda, just as Bergoglio calls his political manifesto of allegiance to the New World Order an “encyclical letter.” The cunning of the enemy has isolated the healthy part of the Church, torn between having to recognize the subversive nature of the Council documents, thus having to exclude them from the Magisterial corpus, and having to deny reality by declaring them apodictically orthodox in order to safeguard the infallibility of the Magisterium.

The Dubia represented a humiliation for those Princes of the Church, but without untying the doctrinal knots brought to the attention of the Roman Pontif. Bergoglio does not respond, precisely because he does not want to deny or confrm the implied errors, thus exposing himself to the risk of being declared a heretic and losing the papacy. This is the same method used with the Council, where ambiguity and the use of imprecise terminology prevent the condemnation of the error that has been implied. But the jurist knows very well that, in addition to the blatant violation of the law, one can also commit a crime by circumventing it, using it for evil purposes: contra legem ft, quod in fraudem legis ft. [what circumvents the law is against it.]

11. CONCLUSION The only way to win this battle is to go back to doing what the Church has always done, and to stop doing what the anti-church asks of us today – that which the true Church has always condemned. Let us put Our Lord Jesus Christ, King and High Priest, back at the center of the life of the Church; and before that, at the center of the life of our communities, of our families, of ourselves. Let us restore the crown to Our Lady Mary Most Holy, Queen and Mother of the Church.

Let us return to celebrate the traditional Holy Liturgy worthily, and to pray with the words of the Saints, not with the ramblings of the modernists and heretics. Let us begin again to savor the writings of the Fathers of the Church and the Mystics, and to throw into the fre the works imbued with modernism and immanentist sentimentalism. Let us support, with prayer and material help, the many good priests who remain faithful to the true Faith, and withdraw all support from those who have come to terms with the world and its lies.

And above all – I ask you in the name of God! – let us abandon that sense of inferiority that our adversaries have accustomed us to accept: in the Lord’s war, they do not humiliate us (we certainly deserve every humiliation for our sins). No, they humiliate the Majesty of God and the Bride of the Immaculate Lamb. The Truth that we embrace does not come from us, but from God! Let Trutht be denied, accept that it must justify itself before the heresies and errors of the anti-church, is not an act of humility, but of

51 cowardice and pusillanimity.

Let us be inspired by the example of the Holy Maccabees Martyrs, before a new Antiochus who asks us to sacrifce to idols and to abandon the true God. Let us respond with their words, praying to the Lord:

“So now, O Sovereign of the heavens, send a good angel to spread terror and trembling before us. By the might of your arm may these blasphemers who come against your holy people be struck down” (2 Mac 15:23).

Let me conclude my talk today with a personal memory. When I was Apostolic Nuncio in Nigeria, I learned about a magnifcent popular tradition that came out from the terrible war in Biafra, and which continues to this day. I personally took part in it during a pastoral visit to the Archdiocese of Onitsha, and I was very impressed by it. This tradition – called “Block Rosary Children” – consists in gathering thousands of children (even very young ones) in each village or neighborhood for the recitation of the Holy Rosary to implore peace – each child holding a little piece of wood, like a mini altar, with an image of Our Lady and a small candle on it.

In the days leading up to November 3rd, I invite everyone to join in a Rosary Crusade: a sort of siege of Jericho, not with seven trumpets made of ram’s horns sounded by priests, but with the Hail Mary’s of the little ones and the innocent to bring down the walls of the deep state and of deep church.

Let us join with little ones in a Block Rosary Children, imploring the Woman clothed with the Sun, that the Reign of Our Lady and Mother may be restored, and the eclipse that aficts us shortened.

And may God bless these holy intentions. + Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Original Source: The Remnant Newspaper

1 Padre Antonio Spadaro sj, Fratelli Tutti, la risposta di Francesco alla crisi del nostro tempo, in Formiche, 4 Ottobre 2020 (qui).

2 Pope Francis’ pontifcate is like a standard lifted up before Catholic integralists and those who equate material continuity and tradition: Catholic doctrine does not just develop. Sometimes it really changes: for example on death penalty, war: https://twitter.com/Johnthemadmonk/status/1313616541385134080/photo/1 https://twitter.com/massimofaggioli/status/1313569449065222145?s=21

3 Dovremmo evitare di cadere in questi quattro atteggiamenti perversi, che certo non aiutano alla ricerca onesta e al dialogo sincero e produttivo sulla costruzione del futuro del nostro pianeta: negazione, indiferenza, rassegnazione e fducia in soluzioni inadeguate: cfr. https://www.avvenire.it/papa/pagine/papa-su-clima-basta-negazionismi-su-

52 riscaldamento-globale

4 Religio, id est cultus Dei, qui homo feri voluit, atque religio - talis enim est aestimanda - id est cultus hominis, qui feri vult Deus, inter se congressae sunt. Quid tamen accidit? Certamen, proelium, anathema? Id sane haberi potuerat, sed plane non accidit. Vetus illa de bono Samaritano narratio excmplum fuit atque norma, ad quam Concilii nostri spiritualis ratio directa est. Etenim, immensus quidam erga homines amor Concilium penitus pervasit. Perspectae et iterum consideratae hominum necessitates, quae eo molestiores funt, quo magis huius terrae flius crescit, totum nostrae huius Synodi studium detinuerunt. Hanc saltem laudem Concilio tribuite, vos, nostra hac aetate cultores humanitatis, qui veritates rerum naturam transcendentes renuitis, iidemque novum nostrum humanitatis studium agnoscite: nam nos etiam, immo nos prae ceteris, hominis sumus cultores. Paolo VI, Allocuzione per l’ultima sessione del Concilio Ecumenico Vaticano II, 7 Dicembre 1965: cfr.http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p- vi_spe_19651207_epilogo-concilio.html

5 https://twitter.com/i/status/1312837860442210304

6 Cfr. www.educationglobalcompact.org

7 Congregazione per l’Educazione Cattolica, Lettera Circolare alle scuole, università e istituzioni educative, 10 Settembre 2020, cfr. http://www.educatio.va/content/dam/cec/Documenti/2020-09/IT-CONGREGATIO- LETTERA-COVID.pdf

8 https://www.lastampa.it/cronaca/2020/10/03/news/green-blue-la-nuova-voce-dell- economia-sostenibile-via-con-il-papa-e-bill-gates-1.39375988 https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2990-the-vatican-un- alliance-architects-of-death-and-doom

9 Card. Miguel Ángel Ayuso Guixot, Il documento sulla Fraternità umana nel solco del Concilio Vaticano II, 3 Febbraio 2020. Cfr. https://www.laciviltacattolica.it/news/il- documento-sulla-fratellanza-umana-nel-solco-del-concilio-vaticano-ii/

10 https://www.cfnews.org.uk/bishop-schneider-pachamama-worship-in-rome-was- prepared-by-assisi-meetings/

11 Mons. Fulton Sheen, discorso radiofonico del 26 Gennaio 1947.

Cfr. https://www.tempi.it/fulton-sheen-e-linganno-del-grande-umanitario/

12 https://www.infocatolica.com/?t=noticia&cod=38792

13 https://twitter.com/grandeorienteit/status/1312991358886514688

14 https://youtu.be/s8v-O_VH1xw

53 15 Vous amènerez des amis autour de la Chaire apostolique. Vous aurez prêché une révolution en tiare et en chape, marchant avec la croix et la bannière, une révolution qui n’aura besoin que d’être un tout petit peu aiguillonnée pour mettre le feu aux quatre coins du monde. Cfr. Jacques Cretineau-Joly, L’Église romaine en face de la Révolution, Parigi, Henri Plon, 1859 (qui).

October 21, 2020 On Francis' Documentary: Francesco

The Vatican News website1 has reported the news that today at the Rome Film Festival a documentary flm will be screened called Francesco made by director Evgeny Afneevsky. This documentary – according to what has been reported by Catholic News Agency2 and America Magazine3 – makes public several pronouncements of Jorge Mario Bergoglio on the topic of homosexuality. Among the various statements, these two are particularly disconcerting:

“Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it.” “What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered. I stood up for that.”

One does not have to be a theologian or a moral expert to know that such statements are totally heterodox and constitute a very serious cause of scandal for the faithful.

But pay careful attention: these words simply constitute the umpteenth provocation by which the “ultra-progressive” part of the Hierarchy wants to artfully provoke a schism, as it has already tried to do with the Post-Synodal Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, the modifcation of doctrine on the death penalty, the Pan-Amazon Synod and the flthy Pachamama, and the Abu Dhabi Declaration which has now been reafrmed and aggravated by the Encyclical Fratelli Tutti.

It appears that Bergoglio is impudently trying to “raise the stakes” in a crescendo of heretical afrmations, in such a way that it will force the healthy part of the Church – which includes bishops, clergy, and faithful – to accuse him of heresy, in order to declare that healthy part of the Church schismatic and “the enemy of the Pope.” Jorge Mario Bergoglio is trying to force some Cardinals and Bishops to separate themselves from communion with him, obtaining as a result not his own deposition for heresy but rather the expulsion of Catholics who want to remain faithful to the perennial Magisterium of the Church. This trap would have the purpose – in the presumed intentions of Bergoglio and his “magic circle” – of consolidating his own power within a church that would only nominally be “Catholic” but in reality would be heretical and schismatic.

54 This deception draws on the support of the globalist élite, the mainstream media and the LGBT lobby, to which many clergy, bishops, and cardinals are no strangers. Furthermore, let us not forget that in many nations there are laws in force which criminally punish anyone who considers sodomy reprehensible and sinful or who does not approve of the legitimization of homosexual “matrimony” – even if they do so on the basis of their Creed. A pronouncement by the bishops against Bergoglio on a question like homosexuality could potentially lead civil authority to prosecute them criminally, with the approval of the Vatican.

Bergoglio would thus have on his side not only the “deep church” represented by rebels like Father James Martin, S.J., and those who promote the German “Synodal Path,” but also the “deep state.” It is not surprising that in the documentary there is also an endorsement of the Democratic candidate in the upcoming American presidential election, along with a disconcerting condemnation of the policy of the Trump Administration, which is accused of separating families that want to enter the United States illegally, while the reality is that the President is confronting human trafcking and the trafcking of minors.

Thus, while conservative American bishops are forbidden from intervening in the political debate in support of President Trump, the Vatican allows itself to casually interfere in the elections in favor of his Democratic adversary, in union with the censorship by social and news media of the very serious accusations against the Biden family.

As Catholics, we are called to side with those who defend life, the natural family, and national sovereignty. We thought that we had the Vicar of Christ at our side. We painfully acknowledge that, in this epochal clash, he who ought to be guiding the Barque of Peter has chosen to side with the Enemy, in order to sink it. Recalling the courage of the Holy Pontifs in defending the integrity of the Faith and promoting the salvation of souls, one can only observe: Quantum mutatus ab illis!4

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Original Source: OnePeterFive 1 https://www.vaticannews.va/it/papa/news/2020-10/papa-francesco-flm-documentario- festival-cinema-roma.html

2 https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-calls-for-civil-union-law-for- same-sex-couples-in-shift-from-vatican-stance-12462

3 https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2020/10/21/pope-francis-gay-civil-union- documentary

4 “How changed from what they once were!” – cf. Virgil’s Aeneid: “Quantum mutatus ab illo!

______

55 October 11, 2020 Westen Interview: Fratelli Tutti and Silent US Bishops

The following are Archbishop Viganò's responses to questions presented to him by John- Henry Westen of LifeSite News regarding Francis' encyclical Fratelli Tutti, the US Bishops' silence on abortion, and attacks against Catholic faith in politics:

John-Henry Westen: What is your opinon on Fratelli Tutti, particularly its silence regarding abortion, especially in light of what the encyclical defnes as the “biggest concerns” for politicans? Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: Fratelli Tutti, in speaking about the concerns which should motivate the actions of politicians, mentions the

“phenomenon of social and economic exclusion, with its baneful consequences: human trafcking, the marketing of human organs and tissues, the sexual exploitation of boys and girls, slave labor, including prostitution, the drug and weapons trade, terrorism and international organized crime.”1

These are all plagues that need to be denounced, but which I believe are already recognized as such by many people. The focal point, which is much more important from the moral aspect, but not mentioned in the Encyclical, is abortion, which is tragically claimed today as a right.2

This deafening silence concerning the most odious crime in the eyes of God – because it is committed upon an innocent and defenseless child depriving it of life – betrays the twisted vision of this ideological manifesto that is in the service of the New World Order. Its slanted vision lays in psychologically prostrated submission to the requests of mainstream thought, while looking at the teachings of the Gospel with the myopic and embarrassed view of those who consider it unthinkable and outdated.

The spiritual and transcendent dimension is completely ignored, as are natural and Catholic morality. But what brotherhood could ever exist between people, if killing an innocent child is considered irrelevant? How can one condemn social exclusion while remaining silent on the most criminal of social exclusions, that of a child who has a right to live, to grow, to be loved and to love, adore and serve God and attain eternal life? What is the point of addressing arms trafcking, if one can be joined in brotherhood with one who dismembers a child in the womb of its mother, one who sucks the child’s brains out the instant before birth? How can one place brotherhood ahead of the horror of those who poison the sick or the elderly, who are denied any chance of participating in Our Lord’s Passion through sufering? What respect for nature can be invoked, when the gender of a person, written into our chromosomes, can be changed, or when a sterile union of two men or two women could be considered a family? Does not the destructive fury of “mother earth” apply to those who, by altering the wonderful work of the Creator, assume the right to modify the DNA of plants, animals, and human beings?

Fratelli Tutti is an encyclical that not only lacks Faith, but also Hope and Charity. The voice of the Divine Shepherd and Physician of souls does not echo in its language, but

56 rather the rapacious wolf’s growl or the mercenary’s deafening silence (Jn 10:10). There is no breath of love either for God or for man, because in order to truly desire the good of modern man it is necessary to wake him out of his hypnotic spell of do-goodery, ecologism, pacifsm, ecumenism, and globalism. In order to want the good of sinful and rebellious man, it is necessary to make him understand that by distancing himself from his Creator and Lord he will end up being a slave of Satan and of himself. No sense of brotherhood with other damned souls can remedy enmity towards God. It will not be the world nor philanthropists who will judge him, but Our Lord Himself, who died on the Cross to save him.

I believe that this very sad Fratelli Tutti represents, in a certain way, the emptiness of a withered heart, of a blind man deprived of supernatural sight, who gropingly thinks he can give an answer that he himself frst ignores. I recognize that it is a sad and grave statement, but I think that more than asking ourselves about the orthodoxy of this document, we should ask ourselves what is the state of a soul incapable of feeling any surge of Charity, of allowing himself to be touched by a divine ray shining into that gloomy greyness represented by his utopian, transient dream, closed to the Grace of God.

The introit of this Sunday’s Mass sounds a warning for us:

Salus populi ego sum, dicit Dominus: de quacumque tribulatione clamaverint ad me, exaudiam eos: et ero illorum Dominus in perpetuum. Attendite, popule meus, legem meam: inclinate aurem vestram in verba oris mei.3

The Lord is the salvation of His people, who shall be heard in tribulation as long as they listen to His law. Our Lord tells us in no uncertain terms: “Without Me you can do nothing” (Jn 15:8). The utopia of the Tower of Babel, no matter how it may update itself and appear under the guise of the United Nations or the New World Order, is destined to collapse stone upon stone, because it is not founded on the Cornerstone who is Christ.

“Behold they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; and nothing that they propose to do will not be impossible for them. Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” (Gn 11:4-7).

The globalist and ecumenical pacifsm of Fratelli Tutti envisions an earthly paradise that lays its foundations on refusing to recognize the Kingship of Christ over societies and the entire world; on being silent about the scandal of the Cross, considered as a “divisive” rather than the only hope of salvation for humanity; on forgetting that the social injustices and the evil present in the world are consequences of sin, and that only by conforming to the will of God can we hope to foster peace and harmony among men. Human beings can be truly brothers only in Christ, by recognizing together the Fatherhood of God. The Encyclical lacks Hope, understood as the theological virtue infused by God into the soul by which we desire the Kingdom of Heaven and eternal life, placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our strength, but on the help of the Grace of the Holy Spirit.4 Hoping that a horizontal brotherhood can guarantee peace and justice has nothing supernatural about it, because it does not look to the Kingdom of Heaven, it is not based on the promises of Christ, and it does not consider Divine Grace necessary, placing its

57 trust in man who is corrupted by original sin and therefore inclined to evil. Anyone who feeds such false hopes – for example by stating that “there is no need to believe in God to go to heaven”5 – does not perform an act of charity. On the contrary: this encourages the wicked on the path of sin and perdition, making themselves complicit in their damnation and their despair. It contradicts the very words of the Savior: “I said to you, that you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not that I am He, you shall die in your sin” (Jn 8:24).

I add, with great pain, that lately the answer of the Church in the face of evil, death, sickness, sufering and injustices in the world is lacking, if not completely absent. It is as if the Gospel has nothing to say to modern man, or as if what it has to say is outdated: “I don’t want to sell useless recipes, this is the reality.”6 One’s blood runs cold when reading these words: “God is unjust? Yes, He was unjust with His Son, by sending Him to the cross.”7 There is no need to refute this statement; it is enough to observe that if we deny that sin is the cause of the sufering and death that aficts humanity, we inevitably end up placing the responsibility on God, accusing Him of being “unjust” and therefore excluding Him from our very own horizon. From here we understand how the pursuit of human brotherhood is found outlined in the words of the Psalmist: “The kings of the earth rise up, and princes take counsel together, against the Lord and against His Anointed” (Ps 2:2).

Thus the Church – or rather her counterfeit that eclipses her almost entirely – does not ofer a Catholic answer anymore to the man who is hopeless and thirsting for Truth, but instead advances the scandal of pain and sufering whose root cause is sin, placing the responsibility on God and blaspheming Him as “unjust.”

Westen: Your Excellency, I imagine that you have seen how pro-life leaders in the United States are begging the Bishops to openly declare that abortion is the preeminent question during this presidential election. There have been various Bishops who have said the exact opposite and now use the points discussed in the encyclical of Pope Francis in support of their ideas. What advice would give to your brother Bishops and to the faithful?

Abp. Viganò: Silence on abortion is a terrible sign of the spiritual and moral deviance in that part of the Hierarchy which denies its very own mission because it has denied Christ. And just as in abortion the mother kills her own child, whom she should love, protect, and bring forth into this earthly life, so in the present fraud, the Church, willed by God to bring forth souls to eternal life, is found killing them herself spiritually in her own womb, because of the betrayal of her own Ministers. The hatred of the enemies of Christ does not spare even His Most Holy Mother, whose divine Motherhood is hated by Satan, because through Her the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity became Man to redeem us. If we are friends of the Blessed Virgin, Her enemies are our enemies, according to what has been established by the Lord in the Protoevangelium: “I will put enmity between thee and the Woman, and between your ofspring and Hers” (Gen 3:15).

I remind my brother Bishops that they were anointed with the Holy Chrism as athletes of the Faith, not as neutral spectators of the struggle between God and the Adversary. I pray

58 that the few, courageous Pastors who raise their voices to defend the inviolable and non- negotiable principles which the Lord has established in natural law, may be joined by those who today hesitate out of fear, timidity, or a false sense of prudence. You have the “grace of state” to be heard by your fock, who recognizes in you the voice of the Divine Shepherd (Jn 10:2-3). Do not be afraid to proclaim the Gospel of Christ, just as the Apostles and the Bishops who succeeded them did not fear martyrdom.

I ask the faithful, disoriented by the silence of so many fainthearted shepherds, to raise their prayers to Heaven, invoking from the Paraclete those graces which only the Holy Spirit can instill in the most hardened and rebellious hearts:

Lava quod est sordidum, riga quod est aridum, sana quod est saucium. Flecte quod est rigidum, fove quod est frigidum, rege quod est devium.

Ofer your sacrifces, your penances, and your suferings in sickness for the Church and for your Pastors.

Westen: I have recently interviewed the wife of the former nominee for the Supreme Court Robert Bork, who spoke about the lack of support from the Church during her husband’s outrageous hearings; she even hinted to the fact that the attacks against him were led by the “Catholic” Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy. What is your opinion of the attacks against Judge Barrett, particularly because of her faith?

Abp. Viganò: The hatred of the world, of which Satan is the prince (Jn 12:31), is the most evident disavowal of the utopian dream of Fratelli Tutti. There cannot be brotherhood among men, if it excludes the common Fatherhood of the One True God, One and Triune. Those who preach equality and equal rights to the point of giving legitimacy to error and vice, become intolerant when they see their own abusive power is at risk – as soon as a Catholic politician, in the name of equal rights, wants to testify to his or her own Faith in legislating and governing. So, in this way the highly touted “brotherhood” is realized only among the children of darkness, necessarily either excluding the children of light or forcing them to deny their own identity. And it is signifcant that the only requisite of this brotherhood appears to be always founded on the refusal of Christ, while it is considered impossible to have a true and holy brotherhood in the sacred bond of Charity, “in justice and holiness that proceeds from truth” (Eph 4:24).

With the unction of Confrmation, a Catholic becomes a soldier of Christ. A soldier who does not fght for his King but allies himself with the enemy is a traitor, a renegade, a deserter. Therefore, let Catholic politicians and those who hold institutional positions bear witness the One who shed His Blood for them. Not only will they receive the necessary graces to carry out their duties in public afairs, but they will also be an example to their brothers and will merit an eternal reward, which is the only thing that really matters. “Te nationum praesides honore tollant publico; colant magistri, judices, leges et artes exprimant.”8

59 + Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop Former Apostolic Nuncio of Washington, D.C. (2011-2016)

Original Source: Lifesite News

[1] Speech at the United Nations Organization, New York, 25 September 2015, AAS 107 (2015), 1039. Cited in the encyclical Fratelli Tutti, 188.

[2] The only indirect mention of abortion is n. 24 of the Encyclical, in which violence that “forces [women] to abort” is denounced, but without condemning the killing of the unborn itself. The reference to the unborn child in Fratelli Tutti n. 18 is very weak and does not explicitly mention the term «abortion». Spending just three words on the most abominable crime that involves millions of deaths every year in the world, does not change the evidence that the encyclical is literally obsessed with human solidarity in support to globalist agenda. Besides, in the contest of the US election campaign (concomitant with the publication of the papal document), an explicit condemnation of abortion would openly contradict the democratic candidate, which is strongly in favor of the abortion. I would add that the references to children seems more aimed to the Islamic families, in particular of those of the immigrants, who, according to Bergoglio, represent the demographic future of Europe.

[3] “I am the salvation of the people, says the Lord: Should they cry to me in any distress, I will hear them, and I will be their Lord forever. Hear my teaching, O my people: incline your ear to the words of my mouth.” Ps. 77:1, 19th Sunday after Pentecost, Introit. [4] CCC, 1817.

[5] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-assures-atheists- you-don-thave-believe-god-go-heaven-8810062.html

[6] Il Papa: non c’è una risposta alla morte dei bambini, in: Avvenire, 15 December 2016; https://www.avvenire.it/papa/pagine/papa-udienza-al-bambino-gesu

[7] Ibid. [8] 11 October 2020 Divine Motherhood of Mary Most Holy, 19th Sunday after Pentecost

October 1, 2020 Boezi Interview: Trump & Biden

Francesco Boezi: Archbishop Viganò, why did you write a letter in favor of President Trump?

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: On August 14, 2011, Pope Benedict XVI let me know that it was his conviction that at that

60 moment my providential position was the Nunciature in the United States of America. This is what he wrote to me:

“I would like to tell you that I have refected and prayed with reference to your condition after the recent events. The sad news of the passing away of His Excellency Archbishop Pietro Sambi has confrmed in me the conviction that your providential position at this moment is the Nunciature in the United States of America. On the other hand, I am certain that your knowledge of this great country will help you to undertake the demanding challenge of this work, which in many ways will prove decisive for the future of the universal Church.”

My ofcial assignment in that immense and beloved country has ended, but the challenge to which Pope Benedict referred to almost prophetically, and in which he chose to involve me, is still present more than ever; indeed, it has become ever more dramatic, taking on tremendous dimensions: the destiny of the world is being played out at this hour precisely on the American front.

Now that I am free from my ofcial assignment, the inspiration confded to me by Pope Benedict permits me to address President Trump with the utmost freedom, pointing out his role in the national and international context and how decisive his mission is in the epochal confrontation that has been unfolding in recent months.

Boezi: An epochal confrontation? Really?

Abp. Viganò: It appears today that the Holy See is being assaulted by enemy forces. I speak as a Bishop, as a Successor of the Apostles. The silence of the shepherds is deafening and upsetting. Some bishops even prefer to support the New World Order, aligning themselves with the positions of Bergoglio and Cardinal Parolin who, as a frequenter of the Bilderberg Club, has slavishly submitted to its diktats, like so many politicians as well as the mainstream media.

I am persuaded that everything I denounced in my open letter to President Trump last June is still valid and can form an interpretive key to understanding the events that we are living through. It remains an invitation to have hope.

Boezi: The Catholic Church in America, both in relation to the presidential elections and more generally, appears to be split. The Pope says that dividing is a work of the devil, but the fracturing of the American episcopate is obvious. What is happening?

Abp. Viganò: The split within the American episcopate is the result of an ideological action carried out since the 1960’s especially within Catholic universities – and by the Jesuits in particular – in the formation of entire generations of young people. Progressive indoctrination (on the political front) and modernist indoctrination (on the religious front) have created an

61 ideological support for 1968 which began with the Second Vatican Council, as Benedict XVI confrmed in his essay Principles of Catholic Theology:

“Adherence to an anarchic and utopian Marxism [...] was supported on the front lines by many chaplains of universities and youth associations, who saw the blossoming of Christian hopes there. The dominant fact is found in the events of May 1968 in France. There were Dominicans and Jesuits on the barricades. The intercommunion that was held during an ecumenical Mass in support of the barricades was considered as a kind of milestone in salvation history, a sort of revelation that inaugurated a new era of Christianity.”

This split in the United States, which today has become even more obvious as the presidential elections approaches, is also widespread in Europe and Italy: the highest levels of the Church have desired to make a radical – and in my opinion unfortunate – choice, preferring to follow the mainstream thought of environmentalism, immigrationism, and the LGBT ideology, rather than courageously standing up against them and faithfully proclaiming the salvifc Truth announced by Our Lord. This choice took a great leap forward beginning in 2013 with the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, but it goes back to at least almost sixty years ago. It is signifcant that even then the Jesuits – and all of the Catholic intelligentsia of the Left – looked to Mao’s China as a privileged interlocutor, almost a driving force behind the alleged social renewal, just as today La Civiltà Cattolicaof Spadaro, S.J., looks to Xi Jinping’s China. The Jesuits, who supported the guerillas in Latin America and who were on the French barricades in May of ‘68, today use social media to make similar claims, always with their eyes turned towards Beijing while carrying the same hatred towards America.

It is true that division is the work of the devil: Satan sows division between man and his Creator, between the soul and Grace. The Lord, however, does not divide but separates: He creates a boundary between the City of God and the City of Satan, between those who serve the Lord and those who fght against Him. He himself will separate the just from the wicked on the Day of Judgment (Mt 25:31-46), after having placed himself “as a stumbling stone” (Rom 9:32-33). Separating light from darkness, good from evil, according to the teaching of the Lord, is necessary if we want to follow Christ and renounce Satan. But it is also necessary to separate when we choose who best protects the rights and Faith of Catholics from those who only nominally proclaim themselves to be Catholic while in fact promoting laws that are clearly opposed to both divine and natural law. Just as the Shepherd who warns the fock about the attacks of the wolves is also divisive (Jn 10:1-18).

Accusing Trump of not being Christian solely because of the fact that he wants to protect national borders; evoking the specter of sovereignism as a disaster while human trafcking is allowed; remaining silent in the face of the persecution of Christians in China and elsewhere, or silent before the thousands of profanations of churches that have been happening for months all over the world: is not all this divisive?

Boezi: Joe Biden is pro-abortion, but some American Catholic circles seem to overlook this aspect. Look, for example, at James Martin. What do you think?

62 Abp. Viganò: Father James Martin, S.J., is the standard bearer of the LGBT ideology, and despite this – indeed, because of this – he was appointed by Bergoglio as Consultor of the Holy See’s Secretariat for Communications. His work – which is truly “divisive” in the worst sense of the term – serves to strengthen a ffth column of the progressive agenda within the ecclesial body, so as to create an ideological and doctrinal split within the Church and to make people believe that the demands of progressivism, including the so- called homoheresy, come from the ground up. In reality we know well that the faithful are much less inclined to innovations than public opinion is led to believe, and that the desire to show that there is a supposed “will of the people” in order to legitimize choices incompatible with the perennial teaching of the Church is a ploy which has been used both at the ecclesial level (think of the liturgical reform, which nobody asked for) as well as at the civil level (for example, with gender ideology).

Permit me to recall the words of American Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen (1895-1979):

“The refusal to take sides on great moral issues is itself a decision. It is a silent acquiescence to evil. The tragedy of our time is that those who still believe in honesty lack fre and conviction, while those who believe in dishonesty are full of passionate conviction.”1

We learn to separate who is with Christ from who is against Him, since it is not possible to serve two masters.

Boezi: You have spoken of the “Deep Church”. Is it really possible that one exists? Who composes it?

Abp. Viganò: The expression “Deep Church” gives a good idea of what is happening in a parallel way at the political and ecclesial level. The strategy is the same, just as the goals are the same, and, in the fnal analysis, the mens that is behind it. In this sense, the “Deep Church” is for the Church what the “Deep State” is for the State: a foreign body that is illegal, subversive and deprived of any sort of democratic legitimacy that uses the institution in which it is embedded to achieve goals that are diametrically opposed to the goals of the institution itself.

One example is John Podesta, a “Catholic” liberal and Democrat, a former collaborator of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who is tied to John Halpin’s Center For American Progress. In an email of February 11, 2012, Sandy Newman wrote to Podesta asking him for directions on how to “plant seeds of a revolution” in the Church in matters of contraception, abortion, and gender equality. Podesta responded by confrming that in order to obtain this “springtime of the Church” (note the echo of the idea of the “conciliar springtime”) the organizations Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United had been created. These ultra-progressive associations have been fnanced by George Soros, just

63 as he has fnanced Jesuit foundations and Bergoglio’s apostolic visit to the United States in 2015.2

We should also recall the conspiracy of the Saint Gallen Mafa, which sought to oust Benedict XVI, in concert with Obama and Clinton who saw Joseph Ratzinger as an obstacle to the spread of the globalist agenda.

Boezi: As a Catholic and as a bishop, how do you judge what Trump has done?

Abp. Viganò: I limit myself to observing what Trump has done during his term as President. He has defended the life of the unborn, cutting funding from the abortion multinational, Planned Parenthood, and just in recent days he has issued an executive order that requires immediate care for newborns who are not killed by abortion: up until now they were allowed to die or they were exploited by harvesting their organs and selling them. Trump is fghting pedophilia and pedosatanism. He has not started any new war and he has drastically reduced the existing ones by obtaining peace agreements. He has restored God’s right of citizenship, after Obama had even gone so far as to cancel Christmas and impose measures that were repugnant to the religious soul of Americans.

And I also observe the media war that has been waged by the press and the centers of power against the President: he has been demonized since 2016, despite the fact that he democratically obtained a majority of votes. It is well understood that the hatred against Trump – which is not dissimilar to what happens in Italy in the face of much softer members of the opposition – fnds its real motivation in the awareness of his fundamental role in the battle against the Deep State and all of its internal and external ramifcations. His courageous denunciation of Communism – of which Antifa and BLM are the global versions while the Chinese dictatorship is the incubator – serves in some measure to remedy the silence of the Church, which despite the heartfelt appeals of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Fatima and La Salette has preferred not to renew its condemnation of this infernal ideology. And if Bishop Sanchez Sorondo can declare with impunity, against all the evidence, that China is the best implementer of the social doctrine of the Church, we can rejoice over the words of the President of the United States and the no less courageous words of his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Boezi: It appears that Bergoglio will now not meet with the US Secretary of State [during Pompeo’s trip to Italy this week].

Abp. Viganò: We have now come to the point of paradox, indeed of the ridiculous. Certain attitudes seem more suited to the whims of an undisciplined schoolboy rather than prudence and diplomatic protocol. Pompeo denounced the violation of human rights in China and received a sharp response from Santa Marta: And I won’t play anymore. These are unworthy behaviors which are beginning to cause feelings of undisguised shame even among members of Bergoglio’s magic circle. Not only will he not receive the Secretary of State so as not to hear it said to him ore rotundo that the United States will not stand by

64 watching idly as the Church hands itself over into the hands of a ferocious dictatorship, but he did not even respond to Cardinal Zen’s request for an audience, confrming the specifc intention of the Vatican to renew its submission to the Chinese Communist Party.

Boezi: Did you organize a Rosary for Trump, and, if so, why?

Abp. Viganò: I was urged by many people to launch this initiative, and I did not hesitate to join it, becoming the promoter of this spiritual crusade. This is a war without quarter, in which Satan has been unchained and the gates of hell are trying in every way to prevail over the Church herself. Such a contradiction must be faced above all with prayer, with the invincible weapon of the Holy Rosary.

The involvement of Catholics in politics, under the guidance of their pastors, constitutes their concrete action as citizens who are members both of the Mystical Body of Christ as well as human society. Catholics are not “disassociated” people who believe that God is the Author and Lord of Life when they go to church, but then, at the ballot box or as elected ofcials, approve of the killing of innocent children.

This action of the natural order is accompanied – indeed it must be accompanied – by the awareness that human afairs, as well as social and political events, have a transcendent spiritual dimension, in which the intervention of Divine Providence is always the determining factor. For this reason, Catholics do not extract themselves from the world, they do not fee from the political arena, passively waiting for the Lord to intervene with bolts of lightning, but, on the contrary, they give meaning to their daily action, to their commitment in society, giving it a soul, a supernatural purpose.

Prayer, in this sense, calls down from the Lord of the world and history those graces and the special help which only He can give both to the actions of private citizens as well as to the work of those who govern. And if in the past even pagan kings were able to be instruments of the good in the hands of God, this can happen still today, at a moment in which the Biblical battle between the children of darkness and the children of light has reached a crucial point.

Boezi: What scenarios await the Catholics of the world if Trump should lose? Abp. Viganò: If Trump loses the presidential elections, the fnal kathèkon [withholder] will fail (2 Thess 2:6-7), that which prevents the “mystery of iniquity” from revealing itself, and the dictatorship of the New World Order, which has already won Bergoglio over to its cause, will have an ally in the new American President.

Joe Biden does not have his own identity: he is only the expression of a power that does not dare reveal itself for what it truly is and that is hiding itself behind a person who is totally incapable of holding the ofce of President of the United States, also because of his weakened mental capabilities; but it is precisely in his weakness for pending complaints, in his ability to be blackmailed for conficts of interest, that Biden reveals himself as a marionette maneuvered by the elites, a puppet in the hands of people thirsting for power and ready to do anything to expand it.

65 We would fnd ourselves facing an Orwellian dictatorship desired by both the “Deep State” and the “Deep Church,” in which the rights that today are considered fundamental and inalienable would be trampled with the complicity of mainstream media. I want to emphasize that the universal religion desired by the United Nations and Freemasonry has active collaborators at the highest levels of the Catholic Church who usurp authority and adulterate the Magisterium. They are opposing the Mystical Body of Christ, which is mankind’s only ark of salvation, with the mystical body of the Antichrist, according to the prophecy of the Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen. Ecumenism, Malthusian environmentalism, pan-sexualism, and immigrationism are the new dogmas of this universal religion, whose ministers are preparing the advent of the Antichrist prior to the fnal persecution and the defnitive victory of Our Lord. But just as the glorious Resurrection of the Savior was preceded by His Passion and Death, so too is the Church journeying towards her own Calvary; and just as the Sanhedrin thought that it would eliminate the Messiah by crucifying Him, so the infamous sect believes that the eclipse of the Church is a prelude to its end. A “tiny remnant” remains, made up of fervent Catholics, just as the Mother of God, Saint John, and Mary Magdalene remained at the foot of the Cross. We know that the destiny of the world is not in the hands of men, and that the Lord has promised that He will not abandon His Church: “the gates of hell shall not prevail” (Mt 16:18). The words of Christ are the rock of our hope: “Behold, I am with you all days, until the end of the world” (Mt 28:20).

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop Former Apostolic Nuncio of Washington, D.C. (2011-2016)

Original Source: Remnant Newspaper

[1] https://twitter.com/bishopoftyler/status/1309830562643955712?s=21

[2] https://formiche.net/2016/10/clinton-podesta-papa-francesco/

______

September 23, 2020 Letter to National Catholic Prayer Breakfast

With deep emotion I have learned that President Donald J. Trump will be taking part in the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast on 23 September.

On this occasion, Attorney General William Barr will receive the NCPB’s Christifdeles Laici Award (Christ’s Faithful Laity), named after the Apostolic Exhortation On the Laity by Pope John Paul II.

I would like to make myself present on this memorable occasion, in which I participated with great enthusiasm as Apostolic Nuncio during the years of my mission in Washington,

66 D.C. (2011-2016).

I therefore join all the participants in this extraordinary celebration and all American Catholics, who see in President Donald Trump the greatest defender of the supreme values of Christian civilization: of life, from conception to natural death; of the natural family composed of one man and one woman and children; and of love for the homeland: One Nation under God! And, most importantly, he stands for defending the right to freely practice our Faith, thus allowing us more fully to honor God.

The presidential elections in November represent an epochal challenge, a biblical challenge, the outcome of which will be decisive not only for the United States of America but for the whole world.

It is necessary that all of you Catholics of America are well aware of the role that Providence has deigned to entrust to your President, and that you are aware of the extraordinary battle that He is preparing to fght against the demonic forces of the deep state and against the New World Order. I am at your side with fervent prayer, together with millions of Catholics and with all people of good will throughout the world. Our trust rests in God, the Almighty, whose right hand always works wonders.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop Former Apostolic Nuncio of Washington, D.C. (2011- 2016)

Original Source: Life Site News

September 22, 2020 Article: The Jesuits, The Church, & the Deep State

“Corruptio optimi pessima.” Saint Gregory the Great

Seeking to fnd any coherence of the recent action of the Society of Jesus with the original intentions of Saint Ignatius of Loyola is an arduous if not impossible task, to the point that in hindsight one considers the reconstitution of the Order in 1814 after its suppression by Clement XIV in 1773 to have been ill-advised. It is not surprising that, in the process of dissolution and self-demolition to which the entire ecclesial body is subjected, the contribution of the Jesuits has been – and still remains – decisive. It is no coincidence that since 2013 even the highest throne has been occupied by a Jesuit, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, even though this is in violation of the Ignatian Rule that forbids members of the Society of Jesus to take up positions in the hierarchy.

67 In the international geopolitical context, the role of Italy may appear in some ways marginal, but in reality Italy is a testing-ground for the experiments of social engineering that the globalist agenda intends to extend to all governments over the span of the next ten years, both in the economic and political sphere as well as the religious one. It is therefore understandable why La Civiltà Cattolica and its omnipresent director Fr. Antonio Spadaro, S.J., have spent themselves in decomposed endorsements both of the Italian and global Left, including the Democratic Party in America and the Communist Party in China. On the other hand, the ideological closeness of the Society of Jesus to left-wing revolutionary movements dates back to the frst symptoms of 1968, which Vatican II laid the ideological foundations for and which found their greatest expression in the theology of liberation, after having removed the condemnation of communism from the preparatory documents of the Council. It is signifcant that many of the protagonists of that unfortunate season in Latin America, after the indulgence and moderate sanctions imposed by the Holy See in recent decades, have been rehabilitated and promoted by an Argentine Jesuit.

Seeing Prodi and Gentiloni [two former Italian Prime Ministers] together with Father Spadaro for the presentation of the essay “Nell’anima della Cina” [In the Soul of Chinashould not surprise anyone: they are the expression of that deplorable “adult Catholicism” that ignores the necessary consistency of Catholics in politics desired by John Paul II and Benedict XVI, but that holds together the heterogeneous bestiary of progressivism in the name of Malthusian environmentalism, the indiscriminate welcome of immigrants, gender theory, and the religious indiferentism sanctioned by the Abu Dhabi Declaration. The Assisi Conference – Economy of Francesco – and the coming Encyclical Fratelli Tutti confrm the anthropocentric imprint and the green shift of the Bergoglian church, which instead of the courageous and “politically incorrect” proclamation of the Gospel to all the nations has preferred the easiest environmentalist and immigrationist claims of the globalist agenda, which are dramatically risky for our Western civilization. And President Trump has understood this all too well. Prodi and Gentiloni in Italy – and we would also add Premier Conte, given his origin and his education – have their counterparts on the American side in so-called Catholic personalities like Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Andrew Cuomo: all of them proudly support abortion and gender indoctrination, and all of them are proudly in favor of the Antifa and Black Lives Matter movements that are setting entire American cities on fre. An equitable and honest analysis of the international sponsors of these parties, these “spontaneous” movements and Catholic progressivism reveals a disturbing common thread running through all of these so-called philanthropists who manipulate the political and economic fortunes of the planet with enormous funding. In recent days it has been reported in the news that the Jesuits in America have received grants of nearly two million dollars (over four years) from George Soros, and it seems that the same agreement between the Holy See and the Chinese Communist regime has been fnanced by large annual donations from Beijing to the Vatican cofers that are in a disastrous state. The fact that the Church fell prostrate before the lockdown, suspending liturgical celebrations and closing churches all over the world, has led to considerable collateral economic damage, for which Chinese donations and the lucrative business of welcoming immigrants represent an obvious compensation.

68 The United States is witnessing the highest levels and centers of cultural infuence of the American Catholic Church shamelessly siding in favor of the Democratic candidate and more generally in favor of the entire apparatus that has been consolidating in recent decades within the public administration. The Deep State, Trump’s sworn enemy, is joined by a Deep Church that spares no criticisms and accusations against the incumbent President while winking indecorously with Biden and BLM, slavishly following the narration imposed by the mainstream. It matters little that Trump is openly pro-life and defends the non-negotiable principles that the Democrats have renounced – the important thing is to transform the Catholic Church into the spiritual arm of the New World Order, so as to have an imprimatur from the highest moral authority in the world, something that was impossible with Benedict XVI.

Secretary of State Pompeo did well to censure the renewal of the secret agreement signed between Bergoglio and Xi Jinping! His lucid denunciation brings to light the aberrant Vatican attitude, the betrayal of the mission of the Church, the abandonment of the Chinese Catholic community out of sinister political calculation and the way it is in accord with aligned thought. Nor is the piqued reaction of the Jesuits and Catholic progressivism surprising, beginning with Avvenire [the daily newspaper of the Italian Episcopal Conference]. If Bergoglio can afrm with impunity that “Trump is not Christian”, evoking the ghosts of Nazism and populism, why would the U.S. Secretary of State not have the right to express his opinion – with the more than legitimate objective of international security – about the connivance of the Holy See with the communist dictatorship that is more ferocious but also more powerful and infuential than ever? Why does the Vatican, which is silent in the face of the Democratic party’s support for abortion and the violation of the most basic human rights in China, consider the Trump Administration to have no right to interfere in an agreement that has obvious repercussions in the international political balance? It causes just as much astonishment to see that the parrhesia in political confrontation that is called for in words is contradicted in fact by those who see their wicked plans brought to light. And it is unclear why an agreement presented as absolutely transparent and devoid of any obscure points has been kept secret and cannot be read even by the well-deserving Chinese Cardinal, Joseph Zen. On the other hand, if we consider that among the people who dealt with the drafting of the Agreement between the Holy See and the Chinese Communist Party there was then-Cardinal McCarrick, who was sent by Bergoglio on his behalf (see here), we will also understand the reason that the acts of the canonical process that led to the powerful prelate being reduced to the lay state remain shrouded in secrecy: in both cases an operation of transparency and truth is urgent and necessary, because the honor and moral authority of the Catholic Church in the sight of the whole world is at stake. + Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Original Source: OnePeterFive

September 14, 2020 Tosatti Interview: Democrat Catholics? Introduction:

69 Marco Tosatti: In recent days we have sent Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò some questions about the situation regarding the presidential elections in the United States, and the Church in that country. With great courtesy the former Nuncio to the United States has sent us his answers. But as you will see, the speech has widened and deepened, becoming even more interesting. Enjoy your reading.

Tosatti: Your Excellency, you served as Apostolic Nuncio in the United States from 2011- 2016, and so you know this country very well. The Democratic candidate, Joe Biden, claims to be Catholic, but he is in favor of abortion until the ninth month and “same- sex marriage.” Is it possible to be Catholic and, on an ofcial level, that is, through political and publicly manifest choices, to oppose the teaching of the Church – not on secondary elements, but on vital issues?

His Excellency, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: The question you pose, dear Tosatti, requires a well-articulated response, but frst and foremost it requires serious refection and a clear recognition of who is responsible for creating the conditions that have led to the current situation.

It was September 22, 2015, the day of Pope Francis’s arrival in Washington, D.C., on the occasion of his apostolic journey to the United States. During the dinner at the Nunciature, which was attended by several members of the papal entourage, I told Pope Francis:

"I believe that in the history of the United States there has never been an Administration with so many Catholics at the top: Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. All three of them ostentatiously profess to be Catholic, pro-abortion and in favor of homosexual marriage and gender ideology, in defance of Church teaching. How do you explain this contradiction?"

And I added:

"A Jesuit, Father Robert Frederick Drinan, S.J., from Boston College, held the post of Democratic US Representative for the State of Massachusetts in Washington for ten years, from 1971 to 1981. Father Drinan was one of the most strenuous advocates and promoters of abortion!"

Pope Francis did not react in the slightest, just as he did not react on June 23, 2013 when, answering one of his specifc questions, I revealed to him who Cardinal McCarrick really was.

In 1967, two years after the close of the Second Vatican Council, another Jesuit, Father Vincent O’Keefe, S.J. (whom Bergoglio, as Provincial of the Society of Jesus, must have known, as O’Keefe was Vicar General under Father Pedro Arrupe) as President of Fordham University, together with then-Rector of the University of Notre Dame, Father Theodore M. Hesburgh, organized a meeting of all the presidents of the North American

70 Catholic Universities in the United States, at Land O’ Lakes in Wisconsin. During the meeting, they signed a document known as the Land O’ Lakes Statement, which declared the independence of their Catholic universities and colleges from all authority and all bonds of fdelity to the Magisterium of the Church. This document – which I vigorously denounced in my report to Bergoglio and the competent Roman Dicasteries – had devastating consequences for the Church and civil society in the United States. It is not surprising, then, that the formation of hundreds of thousands of young Catholics – some of whom later became political leaders – has led to this betrayal of the Gospel whose disastrous consequences we see today. It is also not surprising that Theodore McCarrick, then-president of the Catholic University of Puerto Rico, was among the signatories of that rebellious document.

Tosatti: Your analysis doesn’t stop, then, at an observation of the current phenomenon, but goes back to its remote causes, behind which there is a mind that has a long-term plan.

Abp. Viganò: What I wish to emphasize is the close connection between the rebellion of the ultra- progressive clergy – with the Jesuits in the lead – and the education of generations of Catholics, who were formed according to the modernist ideology, fowing into the Council, which served as a premise not only for ’68 revolution in the political sphere, but also for the doctrinal and moral revolution in the ecclesial sphere. Without Vatican II, we would not have had the student revolution that radically changed life in the Western world, the vision of the family, the role of women, and the very concept of authority. In short: the responsibility for the betrayal by these self-styled Catholic politicians rests entirely on the unfaithful clergy, secular and regular, enslaved to modernist ideology, and on the hierarchy, which neither knew how to, nor wanted to intervene with the necessary frmness to prevent this incalculable damage to the entire body of society. In this sense, the deep state and deep church have clearly acted in concert, with the aim of scientifcally destabilizing both the civil and ecclesiastical order. Today we have the opportunity to understand the current situation, and it is once again the task of the Authorities to do everything possible to stop this race to the abyss: the Holy See and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have the duty to call to obedience both the rebel clerics, and the laity whom they continue to deceive and even publicly support.

Tosatti: Do you believe that an authoritative intervention by the Bishops is necessary to call people back to adherence to non-negotiable principles?

Abp. Viganò: When the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued very clear instructions on the exclusion from Holy Communion of Catholic politicians who do not follow the Church’s

71 teaching, it was McCarrick himself, together with Archbishop Wilton Gregory, then- president of the USCCB, who worked to prevent their implementation in the United States. Moral corruption and doctrinal deviation are intrinsically linked and, to efectively heal these wounds in the body of the Church, it is imperative to act on both fronts. If this dutiful intervention does not take place, the Bishops and the leaders of the Church will answer to God for betraying their duty as pastors.

Tosatti: Why do you see a relationship between the Second Vatican Council and the 1968 student protests?

Abp. Viganò: It is undeniable, even if only from a historical and sociological point of view, that there is a very close relationship between the conciliar revolution and 1968. The very protagonists of Vatican II admit it. Joseph Ratzinger stands out among them, writing:

"Adherence to a utopian anarchistic Marxism […] was supported on the front lines by university chaplains and student associations who saw in it the dawn of the realization of Christian hopes. The guiding light is to be found in the events of May 1968 in France. Dominicans and Jesuits were at the barricades. The intercommunion carried out at an ecumenical Mass at the barricades was considered a kind of landmark in salvation history, a kind of revelation that inaugurated a new era of Christianity."1

One of the periti [experts] on the Council, Fr. René Laurentin, wrote:

"The demands of the May ‘68 movement largely coincided with the Council’s grand ideas, particularly in the Council’s Constitution on the Church and the world. To a certain extent, Vatican II was already a protest against the Curia by a group of bishops who were trying to create an institutionally prefabricated Council."2

And the Argentine theologian, Fr. Álvaro Calderón, afrmed:

"If there is anything that immediately stands out to those who study the Second Vatican Council, it is the change, in a liberal sense, of the concept of authority. The Pope stripped himself of his supreme authority in favour of the bishops (collegiality); the bishops stripped themselves of their authority in favour of theologians; theologians gave up their science in favour of listening to the faithful. And the voice of the faithful is nothing more than the fruit of propaganda."3

This vision is also widely and proudly afrmed on the progressive front4, which saw the same demands of the conciliar revolution realized in 1968. Bishop Jacques Noyer, Emeritus of Amiens, recalls:

"I am convinced that the spirit that inspired the preparation, celebration and

72 implementation of the Second Vatican Council is a great opportunity for the Church and the world. It is the Gospel ofered to the men of today. Deep down, May ‘68 was a spiritual movement, even a mystical one, consistent with the dream of the Council."5

Without a “green light” from the Church, the world would never have accepted or taken up the student movement’s demands for rebellion. Beyond the Acts of the Council, it was precisely the spirit of Vatican II that marked the end of a hierarchically constituted society, and of the traditional values common to the Western world: until then, concepts such as authority, honor, respect for the elderly, a spirit of mortifcation and service, a sense of duty, the defense of the family and one’s Fatherland, were shared and, albeit in a weakened form compared to the past, still practiced.

Seeing the Catholic Church, a beacon of truth and civilization for nations, throw open its doors to the world and unhesitatingly discard her glorious heritage, going so far as to revolutionize the Liturgy and water down Morality, was an unequivocal signal to the masses, a sort of approval of the agenda that, at the time, didn’t yet dare to reveal itself completely, even though all of its distinctive signs could be grasped. It destroyed the Church and society, compromised civil and religious authority, discredited marriage and the family, ridiculed patriotism and a sense of duty or labeled them as fascism. All amid the silence of a complicit hierarchy! Those like me, who entered the seminary in the immediate post-conciliar period, can testify that even the Roman Pontifcal Seminaries were immediately conquered by this tremor of protest, emancipation and dissolution of all rules and discipline.

There can be no doubt about this. If this were not the case, the substantial funding that globalist organizations, such as Soros’s Open Society, have allocated to the activities of the Society of Jesus, and presumably to other Catholic organizations, would be inexplicable.6 All the premises that were laid down in a nutshell with Vatican II and the student revolution are now consistently proposed by Vatican leaders on the ecclesial front, and by government leaders on the globalist political front. Therefore, it should come as no surprise if the priorities of Bergoglio’s political program coincide with Joe Biden’s priorities. Migration, environmentalism, Malthusian ecologism, gender ideology, the dissolution of the family and globalism are common to the deep state and deep churchagenda. Bergoglio’s formal opposition to abortion and the LGBT indoctrination of children is disavowed in practice, both by the Bishops’ support for those who promote it politically, and for those who theorize about the use of birth control and the recognition of the rights of sodomites. The case of Father James Martin, S.J. is emblematic, because it confrms an idem sentire [being of the same mind] between the exponents of globalism and the progressive Catholic intelligentsia. The mark that unites these movements is lying and deception, division and destruction, hatred for Tradition and Christian civilization. And ultimately, the theological aversion to Christ, typical of Lucifer and his followers.

Tosatti: Your Excellency, don’t you think that this correspondence between the deep state and deep church is also confrmed in relations with China?

73 Abp. Viganò: The Chinese communist dictatorship is courted by both the deep state and the deep church: Joe Biden is as subservient to the economic and political interests of Beijing as Jorge Mario Bergoglio. It doesn’t matter if human rights are systematically violated in China, if Catholics faithful to the Catholic Church are persecuted, or if a hateful dictatorship massacres millions of innocent people by planning mass abortion: the interests of the globalist agenda prevail even over the evidence of the horrors carried out by the Chinese dictatorship.

I would add: the active support carried out by the Jesuits, since the time when McCarrick went to China to prepare the famous agreement that would later be ratifed by the Vatican under the Bergoglio pontifcate, is signifcant. The agreement aroused considerable perplexity even in the secular press. The Times recently published an article, titled: "The Pope is Beijing’s unlikely admirer", in which Dominic Lawson denounced that

"more and more nations have expressed their concern about the growing evidence of concentration camps and even genocide in the Chinese province of Xinjiang", and pointed out that

"there has been silence from the one entity that has the whole of sufering humanity at the core of its mission. I refer to the Holy See".

And he adds:

"The failure to condemn the genocide is unforgivable."7

Furthermore, during the Angelus last July 5, Francis’s omission of the reference to the events in Hong Kong so as not to annoy Xi Jinping, after having circulated the text to the press8, caused a stir…

This subservience of the globalist movement and the Holy See to China is alarming, and is confrmed also by the meetings Father Spadaro, S.J. and other Jesuits had with representatives of the Communist Party during the lockdown, regarding the circulation of the Chinese edition of La Civiltà Cattolica.

Tosatti: Beyond the current situation, in which the Catholic candidates for the Democratic Party clearly do not hold to the Magisterium of the Church, what should a true Catholic politician be like?

Abp. Viganò: To be Catholic, one must not only be baptized, but must live in a manner consistent with the Faith he has received at the sacred Fount. Faith goes hand in hand with good works, as Sacred Scripture teaches us: without putting into practice our having become children of God through incorporation into the Mystical Body, our words are empty and our witness is incoherent, and indeed scandalous for the faithful and those who do not

74 believe. Father James Martin, S.J. is therefore wrong to limit himself to the purely bureaucratic aspect; his words are refuted by those of the Savior: "You are my friends if you do what I command you" (Jn 15:14). Friendship with God – which consists in the soul being in the state of Grace – depends on our obedience to Our Lord’s orders. Not suggestions or advice: orders! Again, He says: "Not everyone who says to me: ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the Kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" (Mt 7:21).

I would add that hell is not reserved for non-Catholics: among the eternal fames there are many baptized souls, even religious, priests and bishops, who have deserved damnation because of their rebellion against the will of the Lord. Self-styled adult Catholics and their preceptors ought to think carefully, before they hear the words of Christ resound: "I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers" (Mt 7:23).

A Catholic who supports abortion or gender ideology denies not only the Magisterium, but also the natural law, which constitutes the moral basis common to all peoples, of all times and places. The seriousness of an inconsistency between belonging to the Church and being faithful to her teaching refects the artifcial dichotomy between doctrine and pastoral care, which has crept in since Vatican II, and reached its clearest formulation in Amoris laetitia. Yet on closer inspection, the so-called “laicità dello Stato” [secular nature of the State] also poses serious problems, since it recognizes the right of civil society to deny the divine Kingship of Christ and to reject His Law, while at the same time asking the laity to give a testimony of Faith in which the primacy of Catholic Truth is lowered to the same level as error.

What is clear is that Catholics cannot vote for, much less the hierarchy approve, a “Catholic” politician who does not put the integrity of the Church’s doctrine into practice. The self-styled Catholic Joe Biden, who supports partial-birth abortion, i.e. infanticide, and who even before Obama supported gender ideology and celebrated the “marriage” of two men, is not Catholic. Period.

Tosatti: Joe Biden has chosen Kamala Harris as his vice-presidential running mate. Harris defended Planned Parenthood, the world’s largest abortion company, in California when it was accused of trading in aborted baby parts. What is the signifcance of this choice?

Abp. Viganò: The culture of death that underlies today’s prevailing anti-Christian ideology is consistent with itself: the murder of innocent creatures is one of the indispensable elements of those who want to erase not only Christianity, but humanity and creation, which manifests the work of the divine Creator.

As I have said many times, this process of dissolution is carried out on two levels: an ideological one, by those who deliberately want evil and want to implement their own hellish plan in forced stages; and an economic one, by those who support the ideology, not necessarily out of conviction, but for proft. Thus, the human sacrifces that have continued to be celebrated in abortion clinics, even during the Covid-19 emergency, have

75 generated profts for Planned Parenthood and the entire chain of death that trafcs in the organs of aborted babies. Let us not forget that the abortion lobby – like the LGBT movement – has is one of the main fnanciers of left-wing election campaigns around the world. If companies ideologically oriented toward the culture of death lavishly fund certain political parties, it’s not surprising that candidates from those parties support their sponsors with laws that favor them.

Tosatti: An American bishop, Thomas Tobin of Providence, Rhode Island, said that for the frst time in a while, the Democrats don’t have a Catholic on the ticket. Father James Martin, S.J. replied that Biden was baptized Catholic and therefore is one. What does this back and forth allow us to understand about the state of the Church in America?

Abp. Viganò: I have already noted above that “Catholic candidates” are political candidates who not only call themselves Catholic, but who live in a manner consistent with the Faith and Morals taught by the Church. If being Catholic had no concrete impact, it wouldn’t make any sense to vote for a candidate who doesn’t in fact difer from the others. Father Martin, S.J.’s response is sophism, because he pretends not to see the divide between appearing and being Catholic, between exploiting the “designation” for an electoral advantage and being a true witness to the Gospel in private, civil and political life, and in institutions. What about Father James Martin, S.J.? He was baptized, confrmed, ordained a priest, and even made solemn vows of chastity and obedience; he is S.J….. he is LGBT. Someone else, one of the Twelve, betrayed Him. Let Father Martin, who is always impeccable in his clerical dress, look into the mirror of his soul, and see whom he resembles!

Tosatti: Your Excellency, why is the Church so interested in the dominant ideology, which is also clearly anti-Christian?

Abp. Viganò: This is a problem we have been carrying around for seventy years. Since that time, Catholic clergy, and in particular the hierarchy, have sufered from a sense of inferiority that places them below their interlocutors in the world. They feel ontologically inferior. They consider Christ’s teaching to be inadequate and clumsily try to adapt it to the secular mentality. They are afraid of appearing outdated, not in step with the times, even centuries late, as another illustrious Jesuit (r.i.p.) has said…

This terrible inferiority complex is the direct consequence of a dramatic loss of faith. Christ’s saving message is irreconcilable with the seductions of the world; it is unworthy and illegitimate to adulterate the Magisterium in order to please the world, abusing a sacred authority which is aimed instead at preaching to "all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Mt 28:19-20).

As long as Church leaders persist in not being the frst to behave consistently with their own role and with Christ’s teaching, it will be impossible to demand equal consistency

76 from the laity, who look to them as an example. This is confrmed by the fact that there are self-styled “Catholic” politicians who today enjoy the support of self-styled “Catholic” clerics and bishops. It is also confrmed by the fact that those who defend life and the natural law, although they aren’t Catholic, are accused of populism, compared to the dictators of the last century9, and told they are not Christian10 or, as in the recent case of Father James Altman, accused by his bishop of being “divisive and causing scandal”11.

Tosatti: What is the role of Planned Parenthood in American politics? Is it an instrument of freedom and the afrmation of rights, as the “progressives” say, or…

Abp. Viganò: In the globalist society, Planned Parenthood mirrors and plays the opposite role of that played by charitable institutions and foundations that protect life in Christian nations. In Christian societies, children were welcomed with love, and even in situations of poverty and difculty they were cared for, raised and educated to become good Christians and honest citizens, by putting the word of the Gospel into practice. In anti- Christian societies, Planned Parenthood is tasked with killing these innocents, putting into practice the culture of death inspired by the one who was a “murderer from the beginning” (Jn 8:44). Let us not forget that Planned Parenthood, together with the other multinational abortion companies, serve the Malthusian delirium of the globalist high command, which is planning a drastic decimation of the world population.

Tosatti: George Soros and others are trying to pressure Mark Zuckerberg into limiting the pro-life presence and activity on Facebook. The choice of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, and these maneuvers to limit those who defend life – what kind of global scenario do they lead to?

Abp. Viganò: The Gospel spread throughout the world thanks to the preaching of the Apostles and the witness of the Martyrs and Confessors of the Faith. Likewise, the anti-gospel of the Synagogue of Satan is spreading because of the preaching of the children of darkness, the testimony of public fgures, celebrities and entertainers, and self-styled philanthropists. In the end, what’s left is always a division into two camps: on one side, the good, and on the other, the wicked, in the biblical war between good and evil. And if at one time our saints destroyed idols and pagan temples, leaving no room for devil worshippers, today it is inevitable that followers of groupthink will unite to desecrate and destroy churches, tear down crosses and statues of saints, and erase all memory of faith in Christ. In days gone by, forbidden books were censored in order to protect the simple ones, whose souls would be poisoned by them; today, what is good is censored, because evil does not tolerate it.

The global scenario that emerges is manifest before our eyes: until we understand that there can be no dialogue with evildoers (Mt 7:22), that there is no compatibility between the light of Christ and the darkness of Satan, we will not be able to win the battle, because we will not even have recognized that we are at war against the powers of hell. And in a war, there are necessarily two opposing sides: those who refuse to serve under the banner of Christ inevitably end up helping the servants of the Evil One. This

77 awareness is clear to our enemies, but it does not seem to be so clear to those who do not see the Christian life as a “battle.”

Allow me to recall the words of President Trump at the end of the recent Republican National Convention:

"Our opponents say that redemption for you can only come from giving power to them."

This “redemption” consists in denying God’s sovereign rights over individuals, societies, nations, and replacing the gentle yoke of Christ with the odious tyranny of Satan. And it is, to all intents and purposes, a reversal of the Redemption – the redemption of the slave – which the Savior accomplished on the wood of the Cross. So let us not be fooled by the mellifuous words of those who usurp the biblical metaphor of the children of light and the children of darkness to establish the kingdom of Lucifer: the darkness and chaos we see in American cities are the fruit of the same ideology that approves of postnatal abortion and homosexual marriage, just as the backers of the BLM and Antifa movements are precisely the Democrats and the “philanthropic” foundations that furiously oppose Trump’s re-election.12

Biden’s mention, indeed, his ignominious usurpation of John Paul II’s famous exhortation "Do not be afraid!" sounds like the Serpent’s cunning trick to take of the fruit of the tree, rather than the courageous invitation that the Polish Pope launched to a world far from Christ. And it is strange that the indignation of Archbishop Wilton Gregory, who was so ready to censure the presidential couple’s visit to the Shrine of St. John Paul II, today doesn’t also blast his opponent, Joe Biden, a perverted Catholic, who is using the image of the same Pope, and of Bergoglio, to advance his electoral campaign.

Today, John Paul II’s strong and authoritative words would make the Democrats and perhaps the Bishops themselves tremble: "Do not be afraid to welcome Christ and accept his power. Help the Pope and all those who wish to serve Christ and with Christ’s power to serve the human person and the whole of mankind. Do not be afraid. Open wide the doors for Christ. To his saving power open the boundaries of States, economic and political systems, the vast felds of culture, civilization and development. Do not be afraid. Christ knows ‘what is in man’. He alone knows it."13 Today Christ’s saving power is replaced by "the voice of creation which admonishes us to return to our rightful place in the created natural order". The redeeming Passion of Our Lord is replaced by the “groan of creation”, and the scourges of divine Justice by the “wrath of Mother Earth”, of the Pachamama…

President Trump stated:

"Our opponents say that redemption for you can only come from giving power to them. But in this country, we don’t turn to career politicians for salvation. In

78 America, we don’t turn to government to restore our souls. We put our faith in almighty God."

I believe that this faith in God, which clearly must be matched by a consistency of Christian life and witness, will also confrm in the 2020 US presidential election that “the Lord’s right hand has done mighty things” as Psalm 117 reminds us. + Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop Original Source: Marco Tosatti Ofcial Translation by Diane Montagna

[1] Joseph Ratzinger, Les principes de la théologie catholique, Téqui, Paris 1985, p. 433

[2] René Laurentin, Crisi della Chiesa e secondo Sinodo episcopale, Morcelliana, Brescia 1969, p. 16

[3] Álvaro Calderón, La lámpara bajo el celemín. Cuestión disputada sobre la autoridad doctrinal del magisterio eclesiástico desde el Concilio Vaticano II, Ed. Rio Reconquista, Argentina 2009

[4] Cfr. https://www.atfp.it/rivista-tfp/264-ottobre-2018/1494-il-maggio-68-e-il-concilio- vaticano-ii | See also: https://www.agensir.it/italia/2018/04/26/il-sessantotto-agostino- giovagnoli-storico-profondo-legame-con-il-concilio-che-ne-ha-anticipato-alcuni-tratti/ https://notedipastoralegiovanile.it/index.php? option=com_content&view=article&id=13936:il-68-e-la-sua-ricaduta-sul-fronte- ecclesiale&catid=353&Itemid=1074 | See also the interesting chronology published by Archivio 900: http://www.archivio900.it/it/documenti/doc.aspx?id=177

[5] https://www.atfp.it/rivista-tfp/264-ottobre-2018/1494-il-maggio-68-e-il-concilio- vaticano-ii

[6] https://www.marcotosatti.com/2020/09/08/open-society-di-george-soros-fnanzia-i- gesuiti/https://t.co/2alWhlx0R5?amp=1

[7] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-pope-is-beijings-unlikely-admirer-knkvp2qv3

[8] https://www.lanuovabq.it/it/hong-kong-la-santa-sede-si-inchina-al-regime-cinese

[9] https://www.adnkronos.com/fatti/cronaca/2020/09/08/papa-populismo-europa- ricorda-terribili-degenerazioni-passate_QIC4RJ8Dyn07BJD6d82JBI.html?refresh_ce

[10] https://www.toscanaoggi.it/Documenti/Papa-Francesco/La-conferenza-stampa-del- Papa-sul-volo-di-ritorno-dal-Messico

[11] https://quincy-network.s3.ca-central-1.amazonaws.com/wp- content/uploads/sites/10/2020/09/Statement-Father-James-Altman-090920.pdf https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/watch-priest-warns-us-voters-you-cannot-be- catholic-and-be-a-democrat

79 [12] The antifa.com domain redirects to Joe Biden’s campaign site: joebiden.com

[13] https://www.vaticannews.va/it/papa/news/2019-10/22-ottobre-1978-giovanni-paolo- ii-non-abbiate-paura.html; http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul- ii/en/homilies/1978/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19781022_inizio-pontifcato.html

September 1, 2020 Letter on Vatican II #6: What Should Catholics Do Now?

Dear Mr. Kokx, I read with lively interest your article “Questions for Viganò: His Excellency is Right about Vatican II, But “What Does He Think Catholics Should Do Now?” which was published by Catholic Family News on August 22 (here). I am happy to respond to your questions, which address matters that are very important for the faithful.

You ask:

“What would ‘separating’ from the Conciliar Church look like in Archbishop Viganò’s opinion?”

I respond to you with another question:

“What does it mean to separate from the Catholic Church according to the supporters of the Council?”

While it is clear that no admixture is possible with those who propose adulterated doctrines of the conciliar ideological manifesto, it should be noted that the simple fact of being baptized and of being living members of the Church of Christ does not imply adherence to the conciliar team; this is true above all for the simple faithful and also for secular and regular clerics who, for various reasons, sincerely consider themselves Catholics and recognize the Hierarchy.

Instead, what needs to be clarifed is the position of those who, declaring themselves Catholic, embrace the heterodox doctrines that have spread over these decades, with the awareness that these represent a rupture with the preceding Magisterium. In this case it is licit to doubt their real adherence to the Catholic Church, in which however they hold ofcial roles that confer authority on them. It is an illicitly exercised authority, if its purpose is to force the faithful to accept the revolution imposed since the Council. Once this point has been clarifed, it is evident that it is not the traditional faithful – that is, true Catholics, in the words of Saint Pius X – that must abandon the Church in which they have the full right to remain and from which it would be unfortunate to separate; but rather the Modernists who usurp the Catholic name, precisely because it is only the bureaucratic element that permits them not to be considered on a par with any

80 heretical sect. This claim of theirs serves in fact to prevent them from ending up among the hundreds of heretical movements that over the course of the centuries have believed to be able to reform the Church at their own pleasure, placing their pride ahead of humbly guarding the teaching of Our Lord. But just as it is not possible to claim citizenship in a homeland in which one does not know its language, law, faith and tradition; so it is impossible that those who do not share the faith, morals, liturgy, and discipline of the Catholic Church can arrogate to themselves the right to remain within her and even to ascend the levels of the hierarchy.

Therefore let us not give in to the temptation to abandon – albeit with justifed indignation – the Catholic Church, on the pretext that it has been invaded by heretics and fornicators: it is they who must be expelled from the sacred enclosure, in a work of purifcation and penance that must begin with each one of us.

It is also evident that there are widespread cases in which the faithful encounter serious problems in frequenting their parish church, just as there are ever fewer churches where the Holy Mass is celebrated in the Catholic Rite. The horrors that have been rampant for decades in many our parishes and shrines make it impossible even to assist at a “Eucharist” without being disturbed and putting one’s faith at risk, just as it is very difcult to ensure a Catholic education, Sacraments being worthily celebrated, and solid spiritual guidance for oneself and one’s children. In these cases faithful laity have the right and the duty to fnd priests, communities, and institutes that are faithful to the perennial Magisterium. And may they know how to accompany the laudable celebration of the liturgy in the Ancient Rite with adherence to sound doctrine and morals, without any subsidence on the front of the Council.

The situation is certainly more complex for clerics, who depend hierarchically on their bishop or religious superior, but who at the same time have the right to remain Catholic and be able to celebrate according to the Catholic Rite. On the one hand laity have more freedom of movement in choosing the community to which they turn for Mass, the Sacraments, and religious instruction, but less autonomy because of the fact that they still have to depend on a priest; on the other hand, clerics have less freedom of movement, since they are incardinated in a diocese or order and are subject to ecclesiastical authority, but they have more autonomy because of the fact that they can legitimately decide to celebrate the Mass and administer the Sacraments in the Tridentine Rite and to preach in conformity with sound doctrine. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontifcum reafrmed that faithful and priests have the inalienable right – which cannot be denied – to avail themselves of the liturgy that more perfectly expresses their Catholic Faith. But this right must be used today not only and not so much to preserve theextraordinary form of the rite, but to testify to adherence to the depositum fdei that fnds perfect correspondence only in the Ancient Rite.

I daily receive heartfelt letters from priests and religious who are marginalized or transferred or ostracized because of their fdelity to the Church: the temptation to fnd an ubi consistam [a place to stand] far from the clamor of the Innovators is strong, but we ought to take an example from the persecutions that many saints have undergone, including Saint Athanasius, who ofers us a model of how to behave in the face of widespread heresy and persecuting fury. As my venerable brother Bishop Athanasius

81 Schneider has many times recalled, the Arianism that aficted the Church at the time of the Holy Doctor of Alexandria in Egypt was so widespread among the bishops that it leaves one almost to believe that Catholic orthodoxy had completely disappeared. But it was thanks to the fdelity and heroic testimony of the few bishops who remained faithful that the Church knew how to get back up again. Without this testimony, Arianism would not have been defeated; without our testimony today, Modernism and the globalist apostasy of this pontifcate will not be defeated.

It is therefore not a question of working from within the Church or outside it: the winemakers are called to work in the Lord’s Vineyard, and it is there that they must remain even at the cost of their lives; the pastors are called to pastor the Lord’s Flock, to keep the ravenous wolves at bay and to drive away the mercenaries who are not concerned with the salvation of the sheep and lambs.

This hidden and often silent work has been carried out by the Society of Saint Pius X, which deserves recognition for not having allowed the fame of Tradition to be extinguished at a moment in which celebrating the ancient Mass was considered subversive and a reason for excommunication. Its priests have been a healthy thorn in the side for a hierarchy that has seen in them an unacceptable point of comparison for the faithful, a constant reproach for the betrayal committed against the people of God, an inadmissible alternative to the new conciliar path. And if their fdelity made disobedienceto the pope inevitable with the episcopal consecrations, thanks to them the Society was able to protect herself from the furious attack of the Innovators and by its very existence it allowed the possibility of the liberalization of the Ancient Rite, which until then was prohibited. Its presence also allowed the contradictions and errors of the conciliar sect to emerge, always winking at heretics and idolaters but implacably rigid and intolerant towards Catholic Truth.

I consider Archbishop Lefebvre an exemplary confessor of the Faith, and I think that by now it is obvious that his denunciation of the Council and the modernist apostasy is more relevant than ever. It should not be forgotten that the persecution to which Archbishop Lefebvre was subjected by the Holy See and the world episcopate served above all as a deterrent for Catholics who were refractory toward the conciliar revolution.

I also agree with the observation of His Excellency Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais about the co-presence of two entities in Rome: the Church of Christ has been occupied and eclipsed by the modernist conciliar structure, which has established itself in the same hierarchy and uses the authority of its ministers to prevail over the Spouse of Christ and our Mother.

The Church of Christ – which not only subsists in the Catholic Church, but is exclusively the Catholic Church – is only obscured and eclipsed by a strange extravagant Churchestablished in Rome, according to the vision of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich. It coexists, like wheat with the tare, in the Roman Curia, in dioceses, in parishes. We cannot judge our pastors for their intentions, nor suppose that all of them are corrupt in faith and morals; on the contrary, we can hope that many of them, hitherto intimidated and silent, will understand, as confusion and apostasy continue to spread, the deception to which they have been subjected and will fnally shake of their slumber.

82 There are many laity who are raising their voice; others will necessarily follow, together with good priests, certainly present in every diocese. This awakening of the Church militant – I would dare to call it almost a resurrection – is necessary, urgent and inevitable: no son tolerates his mother being outraged by the servants, or his father being tyrannized by the administrators of his goods. The Lord ofers us, in these painful situations, the possibility of being His allies in fghting this holy battle under His banner: the King Who is victorious over error and death permits us to share the honor of triumphal victory and the eternal reward that derives from it, after having endured and sufered with Him.

But in order to deserve the immortal glory of Heaven we are called to rediscover – in an emasculated age devoid of values such as honor, faithfulness to one’s word, and heroism – a fundamental aspect of the faith of every baptized person: the Christian life is a militia, and with the Sacrament of Confrmation we are called to be soldiers of Christ, under whose insignia we must fght. Of course, in most cases it is essentially a spiritual battle, but over the course of history we have seen how often, faced with the violation of the sovereign rights of God and the liberty of the Church, it was also necessary to take up arms: we are taught this by the strenuous resistance to repel the Islamic invasions in Lepanto and on the outskirts of Vienna, the persecution of the Cristeros in Mexico, of the Catholics in Spain, and even today by the cruel war against Christians throughout the world. Never as today can we understand the theological hatred coming from the enemies of God, inspired by Satan. The attack on everything that recalls the Cross of Christ – on Virtue, on the Good and the Beautiful, on purity – must spur us to get up, in a leap of pride, in order to claim our right not only not to be persecuted by our external enemies but also and above all to have strong and courageous pastors, holy and God- fearing, who will do exactly what their predecessors have done for centuries: preach the Gospel of Christ, convert individuals and nations, and expand the Kingdom of the living and true God throughout the world.

We are all called to make an act of Fortitude – a forgotten cardinal virtue, which not by chance in Greek recalls virile strength, ἀνδρεία – in knowing how to resist the Modernists: a resistance that is rooted in Charity and Truth, which are attributes of God.

If you only celebrate the Tridentine Mass and preach sound doctrine without ever mentioning the Council, what can they ever do to you? Throw you out of your churches, perhaps, and then what? No one can ever prevent you from renewing the Holy Sacrifce, even if it is on a makeshift altar in a cellar or an attic, as the refractory priests did during the French Revolution, or as happens still today in China. And if they try to distance you, resist: canon law serves to guarantee the government of the Church in the pursuit of its primary purposes, not to demolish it. Let’s stop fearing that the fault of the schism lies with those who denounce it, and not, instead, with those who carry it out: the ones who are schismatics and heretics are those who wound and crucify the Mystical Body of Christ, not those who defend it by denouncing the executioners!

The laity can expect their ministers to behave as such, preferring those who prove that they are not contaminated by present errors. If a Mass becomes an occasion of torture for the faithful, if they are forced to assist at sacrileges or to support heresies and ramblings unworthy of the House of the Lord, it is a thousand times preferable to go to a church where the priest celebrates the Holy Sacrifce worthily, in the rite given to us by

83 Tradition, with preaching in conformity with sound doctrine. When parish priests and bishops realize that the Christian people demand the Bread of Faith, and not the stones and scorpions of the neo-church, they will lay aside their fears and comply with the legitimate requests of the faithful. The others, true mercenaries, will show themselves for what they are and will be able to gather around them only those who share their errors and perversions. They will be extinguished by themselves: the Lord dries up the swamp and makes the land on which brambles grow arid; he extinguishes vocations in corrupt seminaries and in convents rebellious to the Rule.

The lay faithful today have a sacred task: to comfort good priests and good bishops, gathering like sheep around their shepherds. Give them hospitality, help them, console them in their trials. Create community in which murmuring and division do not predominate, but rather fraternal charity in the bond of Faith. And since in the order established by God – κόσμος – subjects owe obedience to authority and cannot do otherwise than resist it when it abuses its power, no fault will be attributed to them for the infdelity of their leaders, on whom rests the very serious responsibility for the way in which they exercise the vicarious power which has been given to them. We must not rebel, but oppose; we must not be pleased with the errors of our pastors, but pray for them and admonish them respectfully; we must not question their authority but the way in which they use it.

I am certain, with a certainty that comes to me from Faith, that the Lord will not fail to reward our fdelity, after having punished us for the faults of the men of the Church, granting us holy priests, holy bishops, holy cardinals, and above all a holy Pope. But these saints will arise from our families, from our communities, from our churches: families, communities, and churches in which the grace of God must be cultivated with constant prayer, with the frequenting of Holy Mass and the Sacraments, with the ofering of sacrifces and penances that the Communion of Saints permits us to ofer to the Divine Majesty in order to expiate our sins and those of our brethren, including those who exercise authority. The laity have a fundamental role in this, guarding the Faith within their families, in such a way that our young people who are educated in love and in the fear of God may one day be responsible fathers and mothers, but also worthy ministers of the Lord, His heralds in the male and female religious orders, and His apostles in civil society. The cure for rebellion is obedience. The cure for heresy is faithfulness to the teaching of Tradition. The cure for schism is flial devotion for the Sacred Pastors. The cure for apostasy is love for God and His Most Holy Mother. The cure for vice is the humble practice of virtue. The cure for the corruption of morals is to live constantly in the presence of God. But obedience cannot be perverted into stolid servility; respect for authority cannot be perverted into the obeisance of the court. And let’s not forget that if it is the duty of the laity to obey their Pastors, it is even a more grave duty of the Pastors to obey God, usque ad efusionem sanguinis.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Original Source: Catholic Family News Translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino

______

84 August 15, 2020 Letter to Mothers: Against Globalist Dictatorship

Dear Sirs and Dearest Mothers, I have received your kind email, in which you inform me of the initiative you have scheduled for this coming September 5 for the protection of the physical, moral, and spiritual health of your children. In responding to you, I address all the mothers of Italy. The demonstration you are promoting intends to express the dissent of citizens and in particular of parents against the norms that the government, abusing its power, is preparing to issue in view of the new school year; norms that will have very grave repercussions on the health and psychosomatic equilibrium of students, as authoritative experts have rightly demonstrated.

First of all, the systematic efort to demolish the family, the foundation of society, must be denounced, with the multiplication of ferocious attacks not only against conjugal life, which Christ has elevated to a Sacrament, but also against its very natural essence, against the fact that marriage is by nature constituted between a man and a woman in an indissoluble bond of fdelity and reciprocal assistance. The presence of a father and a mother is fundamental in the upbringing of children, who need a male and female fgure as a reference for their integral and harmonious development; nor can it be permitted that children, during the most delicate phase of their infancy and adolescence, be used to advance partisan ideological claims, with serious damage for their psychosomatic equilibirium, by those who with their own rebellious behavior reject the very idea of nature. You can easily understand the impact of the destruction of the family on the civil consortium: today we have right before our eyes the results of decades of unfortunate policies that inevitably lead to the dissolution of society. These policies, inspired by principles that are repugnant both to the Law of nature inscribed in man by the Creator as well as to the positive Law of God given in the Commandments, combine to permit children to be placed at the mercy of the whims of individuals, and that the sacredness of life and conception become objects of commerce, humiliating motherhood and the dignity of woman. Sons cannot be bred by mares for a fee, because they are the fruit of a love that Providence has ordained must always be an enduring love, even in the natural order.

Parents have the responsibility, as a primary and inalienable right, to educate their children: the State cannot arrogate this right, much less corrupt children and indoctrinate them in the perverse principles that are so widespread today. Do not forget, dear mothers, that this is the distinctive sign of totalitarian regimes, not of a civil and Christian nation. It is your duty to raise your voice so that these attempts to steal the education of your children may be denounced and rejected with force, because you will be able to do very little for them if your faith, ideas, and culture are judged incompatible with those of an impious and materialistic state. And it is not just a matter of imposing a vaccine on your children and teenagers, but also of corrupting their souls with perverse doctrines, with gender ideology, with the acceptance of vice and the practice of sinful behaviors. No law can ever legitimately make the afrmation of the truth a crime, because the authority of the law ultimately comes from God, who is himself the highest Truth. The heroic testimony of the martyrs and saints responded to the

85 oppression of tyrants: may you too today be courageous witnesses of Christ against a world that would like to subject us to the unleashed forces of hell!

Another crucial aspect in this battle for the family is the defense of life from conception to natural death. The crime of abortion, which has claimed millions of innocent victims and that cries out for vengeance from heaven, is today considered as a normal health service, and just in recent days the Italian government has authorized the more widespread use of the abortion pill, encouraging an abominable crime and keeping silent about the terrible consequences on the psychological and physical health of the mother. If you think about how during the lockdown all care of the sick was suspended and yet abortions continued, you can understand what the priorities of those who govern us are: the culture of death! What progress can be invoked when society kills its own children, when motherhood is horribly violated in the name of a choice that cannot be free, since it involves the ending of an innocent life and violates one of God’s Commandments? What prosperity can our country expect, what blessings from God can it hope for, if human sacrifces are being made in our clinics just as in the times of the most bloody barbarism?

The idea that children are the property of the state repulses every human person. In the Christian social order, the civil authority exercises its power to guarantee its citizens that the natural well-being is ordered towards the spiritual good. The common good pursued by the state in temporal things therefore has a well-defned object that cannot and must not be in confict with the Law of God, the Supreme Legislator.Every time that the State infringes on this eternal and immutable Law, its authority is diminished, and its citizens ought to refuse to obey it. This certainly applies to the hateful law on abortion, but it should also be applied to other cases, in which the abuse of authority regards the imposition of vaccines whose danger is unknown or that, by their very composition, are ethically problematic. I am referring to the case in which a vaccine would contain fetal material coming from the bodies of aborted children. But there are other disturbing aspects now envisaged, which regard not only the content of instruction but also the method of participation in the lessons: social distancing, the use of masks and other forms of presumed prevention of contagion in classrooms and school environments cause serious damage to the mental and physical equilibirium of children and young people, compromising their ability to learn, the interpersonal relations between pupils and teachers, and reducing them to automatons that are not only ordered what to think but also how to move and even how to breathe. It seems that the very notion of common sense that ought to govern choices fraught with consequences in social life has been lost, and it seems that an inhumane world is being heralded in which parents have their children taken away from them if they test positive for an infuenza virus, with mandatory health treatment protocols applied as in the most ferocious dictatorships.

It is also very perplexing to learn that the WHO has chosen Mario Monti as the President of the European Commision for Health and Development, who has distinguished himself by draconian measures imposed on Italy, among which, it must not be forgotten, is the drastic reduction of public appropriations for hospitals. These perplexities are confrmed

86 by Monti’s membership in supranational organisms like the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Club, whose aims are in clear contrast to the inalienable values protected by the Italian Constitution itself, which are binding on the Government. This mixing of private interests in public afairs, inspired by the dictates of Masonic and globalist thought, should be vigorously denounced by those who are representatives of the citizens, and by those who see their legitimate powers usurped by an elite that has never made a mystery of its true intentions.

We should not lose sight of a fundamental element: the pursuit of ideologically perverse goals is invariably accompanied by an interest of an economic nature, like a parallel track. It is easy to agree on the fact that there is no proft in the voluntary donation of umbilical cords, just as there is no proft in the donation of hyper-immune plasma for the treatment of Covid. Conversely, it is extremely proftable for abortion clinics to provide fetal tissue and for pharmaceutical companies to produce monoclonal antibodies or artifcial plasma. Thus it is not surprising that, following a logic of mere proft, the most reasonable and ethically sustainable solutions are the object of a deliberate campaign to discredit them: we have heard self-styled experts make themselves promoters of cures ofered by companies in which they themselves – in a clear confict of interest – hold shares or are well paid consultants.

Having said this, it is necessary to understand whether the solution of a vaccine is always and everywhere the best health response to a virus. In the case of Covid, for example, many exponents of the scientifc community agree in afrming that it is more useful to develop a natural immunity rather than inoculate the depowered virus. But also in this case, as we know, herd immunity is attained without any costs, while vaccination campaigns involve enormous investments and guarantee equally large profts for those who patent and produce them. And it should also be verifed – but in this the experts will certainly be able to speak with greater confdence – whether it is possible to produce a vaccine for a virus that does not yet seem to have been isolated according to the protocols of science-based medicine, and what potential consequences may come from using newly generated genetically modifed vaccines.

The world health industry, led by the WHO, has become a true multinational corporation that has as its primary end the proft of shareholders (pharmaceutical companies and so-called philanthropic foundations), and its means of pursuing it is the transformation of citizens into chronically ill people. And it is obvious: the pharmaceutical companies want to make money by selling drugs and vaccines; if eliminating diseases and producing efective drugs leads to a reduction in the number of sick people and thus of profts, it will only be logical to expect that the drugs they make will be inefective and that the vaccines they promote will be the instrument of spreading diseases rather than eradicating them. And this is precisely what is happening. How can we think that the search for cures and therapies is being promoted in a disinterested way if those who fnance the search proft disproportionately from the persistence of pathologies?

It may seem difcult to persuade ourselves that those who ought to be protecting health

87 instead wish to ensure the continuation of illnesses: such cynicism repulses – and rightly so – those who are strangers to the mentality that has been established in healthcare. And yet this is what is happening right under our eyes, and it involves not only the emergence of Covid and vaccines – in particular anti-infuenza vaccines, which were widely distributed in 2019 right in those areas where Covid has had the highest number of victims [in 2020] – but all treatments and therapies, as well as childbirth and care for the sick. Such cynicism, which is repugnant to the ethical code, sees in each of us a potential source of proft, while instead what should be seen in every patient is the face of the sufering Christ. We therefore appeal to the many, many Catholic doctors and all doctors of good will, asking you not to betray the Hippocratic oath and the very heart of your profession, which is mercy and compassion, love for those who sufer, and selfess service to the weakest among us, recalling the words of Our Lord: “As often as you did these things for the least of my brothers, you did it for me” (Mt 25:40).

The Catholic Church, especially in recent decades, has intervened authoritatively in this debate, thanks also to the Pontifcal Academy for Life fouded by John Paul II. Its members, up until a few years ago, gave medical-scientifc directives that did not confict with the inviolable moral principles of any Catholic person.

But just as in civil society we have witnessed a progressive loss of responsibility of individuals as well as those who govern in the various spheres of public life, including health care, so also in the “Church of Mercy” that was born in 2013 it is preferred to adapt the commitment of the Pontifcal Dicasteries and the Academy for Life to a liquid vision – and I dare say a perverse vision because it denies the truth – which embraces the demands of environmentalism with connotations of Malthusianism. The fght against abortion, which opposes the reduction of births desired by the New World Order, is no longer the priority of many pastors. During the various pro-life demonstrations – such as those held in Rome in recent years – the silence and absence of the Holy See and the hierarchy has been shameful!

Obviously the moral principles which form the basis for norms to be adopted in the medical feld remain perennially valid, nor could it be otherwise. The Church is the guardian of the teaching of Christ and she has no authority to modify or adapt it to her own liking. We remain bewildered, however, as we witness the silence of Rome, which appears to be more concerned with promoting recycling – to the point of writing an encyclical about it – rather than the lives of the unborn, the health of the weakest, and the assistance of the terminally ill. This is only one aspect of a much wider problem, a much greater crisis, which as I have said many times stems from the moment in which the deviant part of the Church, led by what was once the Society of Jesus, seized power and made her a slave to the mentality of the world.

When we consider the new orientation of the Pontifcal Academy for Life (whose presidency has been entrusted to a person who is well-known for having shown the best of himself when he was bishop of Terni), we cannot expect any condemnation of those who use fetal tissue from voluntarily aborted children. Its present members hope for mass vaccination and the universal brotherhood of the New World Order, contradicting previous pronouncements of the same Pontifcal Academy.[1] In recent days the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales[2] has entered this anomalous wave. On

88 the one hand it recognizes that “The Church is opposed to the production of vaccines using tissue derived from aborted fetuses, and we acknowledge the distress many Catholics experience when faced with a choice of not vaccinating their child or seeming to be complicit in abortion,” but it then afrms, in very grave contradiction with the stated unchanging principles of Catholic morality,[3] that

“the Church teaches that the paramount importance of the health of a child and other vulnerable persons could permit parents to use a vaccine which was in the past developed using these diploid cell lines.”

This statement lacks any doctrinal authority and instead aligns itself with the dominant ideology promoted by the WHO, its principal sponsor Bill Gates, and pharmaceutical companies.

From a moral point of view, for every Catholic who intends to remain faithful to his or her Baptism, it is absolutely inadmissible to accept a vaccination that utilizes material coming from human fetuses in its process of production. This has also been restated authoritatively recently by the American Bishop Joseph E. Strickland in his April 27 Pastoral Letter[4] and in his August 1 tweet.[5]

We must therefore pray to the Lord, asking him to give Pastors a voice, in such a way as to create a united front that opposes the excessive power of the globalist elite which would like to subjugate us all. It should be recalled that while the pharmaceutical companies are proceeding on the plane of economic interests only, there are people operating on the ideological plane who, using the opportunity of the vaccine, would also like to implant devices for identifying people, and that these nanotechnologies – I am referring to project ID2020, “quantum dots” and other similar initiatives – are being patented by the same individuals who patented the virus as well as its vaccine. Furthermore, a cryptocurrency project has been patented to allow not only health identifcation but also personal and banking information to be monitored, in a delirium of omnipotence that up until yesterday could have been dismissed as the ranting of conspiracy theorists, but that today has already been initiated in several countries, including for example Sweden and Germany. We see the words of Saint John taking shape right before our eyes: “It forced all the people, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to be given a mark on the right hand and the forehead; so that no one could buy or sell without having the mark” (Rev 13:16-17).

Given the gravity of the situation, we must also speak out with regard to these aspects: we cannot remain silent if the public authority would make vaccines obligatory that pose serious ethical and moral problems, or that more prosaically do not give any guarantee of obtaining the promised efects and that are limited to promising benefts that from a scientifc point of view are absolutely questionable. May the pastors of the Church fnally raise their voice to defend the fock entrusted to their care in this systematic attack against God and man!

Do not forget, dear Mothers, that this is a spiritual battle – even a war – in which powers that no one has ever elected and that do not have any authority other than that of force and the violent imposition of their own will seek to demolish all

89 that evokes, even only remotely, the divine Paternity of God over His children, the Kingship of Christ over society and the Virginal Motherhood of Mary Most Holy. This is why they hate to mention the words father and mother; this is why they want an irreligious society that is rebellious against the Law of God; this is why they promote vice and detest virtue. This is also why they want to corrupt children and young people, securing hosts of obedient servants for the foreseeable future in which the name of God is being cancelled and the Redemptive Sacrifce of his Son on the Cross is blasphemed; a Cross that they want to banish because it reminds man that the purpose of his life is the glory of God, obedience to His Commandments and the exercise of Christian charity: not pleasure, self-exaltation, or the arrogant overpowering of the weak.

The innocence of children and their trusting recourse to Mary Most Holy, our Heavenly Mother, can truly save the world: for this reason the Enemy aims to corrupt them in order to distance them from the Lord and to sow the seed of evil and sin in them.

Dear mothers, never fail in your duty to protect your children not only in the material order but also, even more importantly, in the spiritual order. Cultivate in them the life of grace, with constant prayer, especially through the recitation of the Holy Rosary, with penance and fasting, with the practice of the corporal and spiritual works of mercy, assiduously and devotedly frequenting the Sacraments and Holy Mass. Nourish them with the Bread of Angels, the true food of eternal life and our defense from the assaults of the Evil One. Tomorrow, they will be honest citizens, responsible parents, and protagonists of the restoration of the Christian society that the world would like to cancel. And please also pray, dear mothers, because prayer is a truly fearful weapon and an infallible vaccine against the perverse dictatorship that is about to be imposed on us.

I take this occasion to assure you of my prayer and to impart my Blessing to all of you: to you, dear mothers, and to your children, and to all those who are fghting to save our children and each one of us from this ferocious global tyranny that is striking our beloved Italy. + Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Original Source: Marco Tosatti Translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino

Footnotes Below: [1] Cf. Pontifcal Academy for Life, Note on the Nature of Vaccination, 31 July 2017.

[2] Cf. Bishops’ Confernce of England and Wales, The Catholic position on vaccination.

[3] Cf. Pontifcal Academy for Life, Moral Refections on Vaccines Prepared from Cells Derived from Human Fetuses, 5 June 2005.

[4] Bishop Joseph E. Strickland, Pastoral Letter from Bishop Joseph E. Strickland On the Ethical Development of COVID-19 Vaccine, 23 April 2020.

90 [5] Tweet of August 1, 2020: “I renew my call that we reject any vaccine that is developed using aborted children. Even if it originated decades ago it still means a child’s life was ended before it was born & then their body was used as spare parts. We will never end abortion if we do not END THIS EVIL!”

Letter on Vatican II #5: Michael Matt & Bishop Barron

Dear Michael, I saw the catechism on the Council published by Word on Fire, and in response to your request I am sending you a brief refection. I won’t go into the details of the FAQs, which seem to me more suited to an instruction manual on how to use a tool or manage a call centre. I will focus instead on the introductory passage from Benedict XVI:

“To defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council. [...] We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them.”

The Holy Father states apodictically that “to defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council” and that “we must remain faithful to the today of the Church.” These two propositions, which complement one another, fnd no support in the Tradition, since the Church’s present is always indissolubly linked to her past.

The Church is comprised of three dimensions: one triumphant in Heaven, one militant on earth and one sufering in Purgatory. These three dimensions of the same Church are closely linked, and it is clear that the triumphant and the purgative dimensions exist in a meta-historical or meta-temporal metaphysical reality, whereas only the militant Church has a today, a contingency given by the passage of time, that nothing can change her essence, her mission and above all her doctrine. Therefore, there is no Church only of today, in which yesterday is now irremediably past and tomorrow has not yet happened: what Christ taught yesterday, we repeat today and His Vicars will profess tomorrow; what the Martyrs witnessed to yesterday, we guard today and our children will confess tomorrow.

Then there is another proposition that “we must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow,” which signifcantly was adopted by the proponents of Vatican II precisely in order to erase the past, afrm the conciliar revolution in the today of that time, and prepare the crisis of that tomorrow in which we now fnd ourselves. And the Innovators who wanted that Council, carried it out precisely with “the reservations that amputated” the uninterrupted Magisterium of the Church and “the arbitrariness that distorted it” — paraphrasing Ratzinger’s words.

I do not see why what the Innovators accomplished with Vatican II yesterday, to the detriment of Tradition, cannot apply to them today: those who, in the name of being pastoral, did not hesitate to demolish the doctrinal, moral, liturgical, spiritual and

91 disciplinary edifce of the old religion – as they call it – in the name of the Council, today would dare to claim for their daring innovations, that obsequious submission and that defence that they did not want to apply to two thousand years of infallible Magisterium. And we are to show unconditional support not for Tradition, but for the only event that has contradicted and adulterated that Tradition. It seems to me that this line of reasoning, if only from a purely logical point of view, doesn’t have much credibility, and limits itself to reafrming that self-referentiality of the conciliar church, in rupture with the uninterrupted teaching of the Supreme Pontifs who preceded it.

Moreover, it seems to me that Benedict XVI’s quotation is also in contradiction with that hermeneutic of continuity, according to which the Council should be accepted not as a rupture with the Church’s past, but precisely in continuity with it: but if there is no Church of yesterday, to what does the continuity of the supposed conciliar hermeneutic refer? Another philosophical pun that, unfortunately, has shown signs of failure since the time it was formulated, and that today is denied from the highest Throne.

We can observe with “amazement” the commitment of the zealots of Vatican II in defending their council, to the point of composing no less than a sort of catechism of the Council. If they had taken the trouble to reafrm, with equal commitment, the immutable doctrine of the Church when it was denied or silenced, precisely in the name of conciliar renewal, today there would be less widespread ignorance of the Faith and less confusion. But unfortunately, defending Vatican II is more important than defending the perennial depositum fdei.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Original Source: LifeSiteNews

August 12, 2020 Mediation to LifeSiteNews

TE ADORET ORBIS SUBDITUS O ter beata civitas cui rite Christus imperat, quae jussa pergit exsequi edicta mundo caelitus!

Thrice happy city, basking fair beneath His royal sway, where at the mandates from His throne all hearts with joy obey!

Jesus took Peter, James, and his brother John and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And he was transfgured before them; his face shine like the sun and his clothes became white as light. And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them,

92 conversing with him. Then Peter said to Jesus in reply, “Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud cast a shadow over them, then from the cloud came a voice that said: “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to him.” When the disciples heard this, they felt prostrate and were very much afraid. But Jesus came and touched them, saying: “Rise, and do not be afraid.” And when the disciples raised their eyes, they saw no one else but Jesus alone. As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus charged them, “Do not tell the vision to anyone until the Son of man has been raised from the dead” (Mt 17: 1-9).

Permit me, dear friends, to share with you some refections on the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, manifested in the Transfguration that we celebrate today, after other signifcant episodes of the earthly life of the Lord: from the Angels over the Cave of Bethlehem to the Adoration of the Magi to His Baptism in the Jordan River.

I have chosen this theme because I believe that in a certain way the focal point of our and your commitment as Catholics may be summarized in it; not only in private and family life but also and above all in social and political life.

First of all, let us revive our faith in the Universal Kingship of Our Divine Savior. He is truly the Universal King, that is, he possesses absolute Sovereignty over all creation, over the human race, over all people, even over those who are outside his fold, the Holy Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church.

Each person is truly a creature of God. Every person owes his entire being to Him, both in his nature as a whole and in each of the individual parts that compose it: body, soul, faculties, intelligence, will, and senses. The actions of these faculties, as well as the actions of all the organs of the body, are gifts of God, whose dominion extends to all of his goods as fruits of His inefable liberality. The simple consideration of the fact that no one chooses or can choose the family to which he belongs on earth is sufcient to convince us of this fundamental truth of our existence.

From this it follows that Our Lord God is the Sovereign of all men, both considered individually and also united in social groups, since the fact that they form various communities does not mean that they lose their condition as creatures. In fact, the very existence of civil society obeys the designs of God, who made human nature to be social. Thus all people, all nations, from the most primitive to the most civilized, from the very smallest to the superpowers, are all subjected to the Divine Sovereignty and, in and of themselves, have the obligation to recognize this sweet celestial Dominion.

THE KINGSHIP OF JESUS CHRIST As the Sacred Scriptures frequently attest, God has conferred this Sovereignty on his Only-Begotten Son.

Saint Paul afrms, in a general way, that God made his Son “heir of all things” (Heb 1:2). Saint John, for his part, confrms the thought of the Apostle of the Gentiles in many passages of his Gospel: for example, when he recalls that “the Father does not judge anyone, but He has given all judgment to His Son” (Jn 5:22). The prerogative of

93 administering justice belongs, in fact, to the king, and whoever possesses it does so because he is invested with sovereign power.

This Universal Kingship that the Son has inherited from his Father should not be understood only as the eternal inheritance through which, in his Divine Nature, He has received all of the attributes that make him equal and consubstantial to the First Person of the Most Holy Trinity, in the unity of the Divine Essence.

This Kingship is also attributed in a special way to Jesus Christ inasmuch as he is truly man, the Mediator between heaven and earth. In fact, the mission of the Word Incarnate is precisely the establishment on earth of the Kingdom of God. We observe that the expressions of Sacred Scripture relative to the Kingship of Jesus Christ refer, without a shadow of a doubt, to his condition as man.

He is presented to the world as the Son of King David, for whom he comes to inherit the Throne of his Father, extended to the ends of the earth and made eternal, without a count of years. Thus it was that the Archangel Gabriel announced the dignity of the Son of Mary:

“You shall bear a Son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of David, his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever and his kingdom shall have no end” (Lk 1:31-33).

And, furthermore, the Magi who came from the East to adore him seek him as a King:

“Where is the newborn King of the Jews?” they ask Herod, on their arrival in Jerusalem (Mt 2:2).

The mission that the Eternal Father entrusts to the Son in the mystery of the Incarnation is to establish a Kingdom on earth, the Kingdom of Heaven. Through the establishment of this Kingdom, the inefable Charity with which God has loved men from all eternity, mercifully drawing them to Himself, becomes concrete:

“Dilexi te, ideo attraxite, miserans”. “I have loved thee with an everlasting love, therefore with loving kindness have I drawn thee.” (Jer 31:3)

Jesus consecrates his public life to the proclamation and establishment of his Kingdom, at times referred to as the Kingdom of God and at others as the Kingdom of Heaven. Following the Eastern practice, Our Lord makes use of fascinating parables in order to inculcate the idea and the nature of this Kingdom that he has come to establish. His miracles aim to convince the people that his Kingdom has already come; it is found in the midst of the people.

“Si in digito Dei eiicio daemonia, profecto pérvenit in vos regnum Dei” – “If it is by the fnger of God that I cast out demons, then the Kingdom of God is upon you” (Lk 11:20)”.

94 The constitution of his Kingdom so absorbed his mission that the apostasy of his enemies took advantage of this idea to justify the accusation raised against him before Pilate’s tribunal: “Si hunc dimittis, non es amicus Caesaris” –

“If you release him, you are not a friend of Caesar.” They cried out to Pontius Pilate: “Everyone who makes himself king opposes Caesar” (Jn 19:12). Validating the opinion of his enemies, Jesus Christ confrms to the Roman governor that He is truly a King: “You say: I am a king” (Jn 18:37).

A KING IN A TRUE SENSE It is not possible to question the regal character of the work of Jesus Christ. He is King. Our faith, however, requires that we understand well the scope and meaning of the Royalty of the Divine Redeemer. Pius XI immediately excludes the metaphorical sense by which we call “king” and “kingly” whatever is excellent in a human way of being or acting. No: Jesus Christ is not king in this metaphorical sense. He is King in the proper sense of the word. In Sacred Scripture, Jesus appears exercising royal prerogatives of sovereign government, dictating laws and ordering punishments against transgressors. In the famous Sermon on the Mount, we may say that the Savior promulgated the Law of his Kingdom. As a true Sovereign, He requires obedience to His laws under pain of nothing less than eternal condemnation. And also in the scene of the Judgment, which announces the end of the world, when the Son of God will come to administer His judgment to the living and the dead:

“The Son of Man will come in his glory […] and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats […]. Then the King will say to those on his right: “Come, you who are blessed by my Father […]. Then He will say to those on his left: “Depart from me, you accursed, into the everlasting fre […]. And these will go of to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life” (Mt 25:31 f.).

A sentence that is both sweet and terrible. Sweet for the good, because of the unparalleled excellence of the prize that awaits them; terrible and frightening for the wicked, because of the terrifying judgment to which they are condemned for eternity.

A consideration of this sort is sufcient in order to realize how it is of the highest importance for people to identify rightly where the Kingdom of Jesus Christ is here on earth, because belonging or not belonging to it decides our eternal destiny. We have said “here on earth” since man merits the reward or punishment for the afterlife in this world.

On earth, therefore, men ought to enter and become part of this inefable Kingdom of God, which is both temporal and eternal, because it is formed in this world and fowers forth fully in heaven.

THE PRESENT SITUATION The fury of the Enemy, who hates the human race, is unleashed primarily against the doctrine of the Kingship of Christ, because that Kingship is united in the Person of Our Lord, True God and True Man. The secularism of the nineteenth century, fueled by

95 Freemasonry, has succeeded in reorganizing itself into an even more perverse ideology, since it has extended the denial of the royal rights of the Redeemer not only to civil society but also to the Body of the Church.

This attack was consummated with the renunciation by the Papacy of the very concept of this vicarious Kingship of the Roman Pontif, thereby bringing into the very heart of the Church the demands for democracy and parliamentarianism which had already been used to undermine nations and the authority of rulers. The Second Vatican Council greatly weakened the papal monarchy as a consequence of the implicit denial of the Divine Kingship of the Eternal High Priest, and by doing so inficted a masterful blow against the institution which until then had stood as a wall of defense against the secularization of Christian society. The sovereignty of the Vicar was diminished, and this was progressively followed by the denial of the sovereign rights of Christ over His Mystical Body. And when Paul VI deposed the triple royal diadem with an ostentatious gesture, as if he was renouncing the sacred vicarious Monarchy, he also removed the Crown from Our Lord, confning His Kingship to a merely eschatological sphere. The proof of this is the signifcant changes made to the Liturgy of the Feast of Christ the King and its transfer to the end of the liturgical year.

The purpose of the Feast, namely the celebration of the social Kingship of Christ, also illuminates its place in the calendar. In the Traditional Liturgy it was assigned to the last Sunday of October, so that the Feast of All Saints, who reign by participation, would be preceded by the Feast of Christ, who reigns by his own right. With the liturgical reform approved by Paul VI in 1969, the Feast of Christ the King was moved to the last Sunday of the Liturgical Year, erasing the social dimension of the Kingship of Christ and relegating him to the merely spiritual and eschatological dimension.

Did all these Council Fathers, who voted for Dignitatis Humanae and proclaimed religious freedom with Paul VI, realize that they in fact ousted Our Lord Jesus Christ, stripping him of the Crown of his social Kingship? Did they understand that they had very concretely dethroned Our Lord Jesus Christ from the throne of his divine Kingship over us and over the whole world? Did they understand that, making themselves the spokesmen of apostate nations, they made these execrable blasphemies ascend towards His Throne:

“We do not want this man to be our king” (Lk 19:14); “We have no king but Caesar” (Jn 19:15)? But He, faced with that confused rumor of senseless men, withdrew his Spirit from them.

For those who are not blinded by bias, it is impossible not to see the perverse intention to downsize the Feast instituted by Pius XI and the doctrine expressed by it. Having dethroned Christ not only from society but also from the Church was the greatest crime with which the Hierarchy could have been stained, failing in its role as the custodian of the Savior’s teaching. As an inevitable consequence of this betrayal, the Authority conferred by Our Lord on the Prince of the Apostles has substantially disappeared. We have had confrmation of this ever since the edict of Vatican II, when the infallible authority of the Roman Pontif was deliberately excluded in favor of a pastorality that created the conditions for equivocal formulations that are strongly suspected of heresy if not bluntly heretical. We therefore fnd ourselves not only besieged in the civil sphere, in

96 which for centuries dark forces have refused the gentle yoke of Christ and imposed the hateful tyranny of apostasy and sin on the nations; but also in the religious sphere, in which the Authority demolishes itself and denies that the Divine King should also reign over the Church, her Pastors and her faithful. Also in this case, the sweet yoke of Christ is replaced by the hateful tyranny of the Innovators, who with an authoritarianism not dissimilar to that of their secular counterparts impose a new doctrine, a new morality, and a new liturgy in which the only mention of the Kingship of Our Lord is considered as an awkward legacy from another religion, another Church. As Saint Paul said: “God is sending them a deceiving power so that they may believe the lie” (2 Thess 2:11). It is therefore not surprising to see that, just as in the secular world judges subvert justice by condemning the innocent and acquitting the guilty, rulers abuse their power and tyrannize citizens, doctors violate the Hippocratic oath by making themselves accomplices of those who want to spread disease and transform the sick into chronic patients, and teachers do not teach love of knowledge but cultivate ignorance in and ideological manipulation of their students, so also in the heart of the Bride of Christ there are Cardinals, Bishops, and clergy who give scandal to the faithful by their reprehensible moral conduct, spreading heresy from the pulpits, favoring idolatry by celebrating the pachamama and the worship of Mother Earth in the name of an ecologism of a clearly Masonic matrix that is perfectly in accord with the plan of dissolution intended by globalism. “This is your hour, the hour of darkness” (Lk 22:53). The kathèkon would seem to have disappeared, if we did not have the certainty of the promises of Our Savior, Lord of the world, of history, and of the Church herself.

CONCLUSION And yet, while they destroy, we have the joy and honor of rebuilding. And there is a still greater happiness: a new generation of laity and priests are participating with zeal in this work of reconstruction of the Church for the salvation of souls, and they do so well aware of their own weaknesses and miseries, but also allowing themselves to be used by God as docile instruments in his hands: helpful hands, strong hands, the hands of the Almighty. Our fragility highlights the fact that this is the Lord’s work even more, especially where this human fragility is accompanied by humility.

This humility ought to lead us to instaurare omnia in Christo, beginning from the heart of the Faith, which is the ofcial prayer of the Church. Let us return to the Liturgy in which Our Lord is recognized in his absolute Primacy, to the worship that the Innovators adulterated precisely out of hatred for the Divine Majesty in order to proudly exalt the creature by humiliating the Creator, claiming the right to rebel against the King in a delusion of omnipotence, uttering their own non serviam against the adoration that is owed to the Lord.

Our life is a war: Sacred Scripture reminds us of this. But it is a war in which “sub Christi Regis vexillis militare gloriamur,” (Postcommunio Missae Christi Regis) and in which we have at our disposal very powerful spiritual weapons, a deployment of angelic forces before which no earthly or infernal stronghold has any power. If Our Lord is King by hereditary right (since he is of royal lineage), by divine right (in virtue of the hypostatic union), and by right of conquest (having redeemed us by his Sacrifce on the Cross), we must not forget that, in the plans of Divine Providence, this Divine Sovereign has at his side as Our Lady and Queen, His own August Mother, Mary Most

97 Holy. There can be no Kingship of Christ without the sweet and maternal Queenship of Mary, whom Saint Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort reminds us is our Mediatrix before her Son’s Majestic Throne, where she stands as a Queen interceding before the King. The premise of the triumph of the Divine King in society and in nations is that He already reigns in our hearts, our souls, and our families. May Christ also reign in us, and His Most Holy Mother along with him. Adveniat regnum tuum: adveniat per Mariam. Marana Tha, Veni Domine Iesu ! Oh come Lord Jesus! + Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Original Source: LifeSiteNews Translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino

August 10, 2020

Letter on Vatican II #4: Fr. Thomas Weinandy

Reverend Father Thomas, I read attentively your essay Vatican II and the Work of the Spirit which was published at Inside the Vatican on July 27, 2020 (here). It seems to me that your thoughts may be summarized in these two sentences:

I sympathize with many of the concerns expressed and acknowledge some of the stated problematic theological and doctrinal issues enumerated. I am, however, uncomfortable with the conclusion that Vatican II is, in some way, the direct source and cause of the present disheartening state of the Church.

Permit me, Reverend Father, to respond to you by using as an auctoritas one of your interesting writings, Pope Francis and Schism, published at The Catholic Thing on October 8, 2019 (here). Your observations allow me to highlight an analogy that I hope may contribute to clarifying my thought and demonstrate to our readers that certain apparent diferences may fnd resolution thanks to a proftable disputatio that has as its primary purpose the glory of God, the honor of the Church, and the salvation of souls. In your essay Pope Francis and Schism, you observe, very appropriately and with the acumen that distinguishes your interventions, that there is a sort of dissociation between the persona Papae and Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a dichotomy in which the Vicar of Christ is silent and lets things drop, while the exuberant Argentine man who today lives at Santa Marta speaks and acts. Referring to the very grave situation of the Church in Germany, you write:

First, many within the German hierarchy know that by becoming schismatic they would lose their Catholic voice and identity. This they cannot aford. They need to

98 be in fellowship with Pope Francis, for he is the very one who has fostered a notion of synodality that they are now attempting to implement. He, therefore, is their ultimate protector.

Second, while Pope Francis may stop them from doing something egregiously contrary to the Church’s teaching, he will allow them to do things that are ambiguously contrary, for such ambiguous teaching and pastoral practice would be in accord with Francis’ own. It is in this that the Church fnds herself in a situation that she never expected.

You continue:

It’s important to bear in mind that the German situation must be viewed within a broader context: the theological ambiguity within Amoris Laetitia; the not so subtle advancing of the homosexual agenda; the “re-foundation” of the (Roman) John Paul II Institute on Marriage and Family, i.e., the undermining of the Church’s consistent teaching on moral and sacramental absolutes, especially with regard to the indissolubility of marriage, homosexuality, contraception, and abortion.

Similarly, there is the Abu Dhabi statement, which directly contradicts the will of the Father and so undermines the primacy of Jesus Christ his Son as the defnitive Lord and universal Savior.

Moreover, the present Amazon Synod is teeming with participants sympathetic to and supportive of all of the above. One must likewise take into account the many theologically dubious cardinals, bishops, priests, and theologians whom Francis supports and promotes to high ecclesial positions.

And you conclude:

With all of this in mind, we perceive a situation, ever-growing in intensity, in which on the one hand, a majority of the world’s faithful – clergy and laity alike – are loyal and faithful to the pope, for he is their pontif, while critical of his pontifcate, and, on the other hand, a large contingent of the world’s faithful – clergy and laity alike – enthusiastically support Francis precisely because he allows and fosters their ambiguous teaching and ecclesial practice.

What the Church will end up with, then, is a pope who is the pope of the Catholic Church and, simultaneously, the de facto leader, for all practical purposes, of a schismatic church. Because he is the head of both, the appearance of one church remains, while in fact there are two.

Let’s try to replace the Pope with the Council, and Bergoglio with Vatican II: I think that you will fnd the almost literal parallel that results quite interesting. In fact, Catholics nourish veneration and respect for both the papacy and for an ecumenical council that the Church asks of them: on the one hand towards the Vicar of Christ, and on the other hand towards an act of the Magisterium in which the voice of Our Lord speaks through the Roman Pontif and the bishops united to him. If we think of Saint Pius V and the

99 Council of Trent, or of Pius IX and Vatican I, it will not be difcult to see the perfect correspondence between those popes and the papacy, and between those councils and the infallible Magisterium of the Church. Indeed, even thinking of a possible dichotomy would rightly fall under canonical sanctions and ofend the pious ears of the faithful.

And yet, as you yourself point out, with Jorge Mario Bergoglio wearing the surreal garments of the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles,

“The only phrase that I can fnd to describe this situation is “internal papal schism,” for the pope, even as pope, will efectively be the leader of a segment of the Church that through its doctrine, moral teaching, and ecclesial structure, is for all practical purposes schismatic.”

I ask then: if you admit, dear Father Thomas – as a painful trial to which Providence is subjecting the Church in order to punish her for the faults of her most unworthy members and especially of her leaders – that the Pope himself is in a state of schism with the Church, to the point of being able to speak of an “internal papal schism”, why can you not accept that the same has happened for a solemn act like a Council, and that Vatican II was a case of “internal Magisterial schism”? If it is possible for this Pope to be “for all practical purposes schismatic” – and I would say also heretical – why could not that Council also have been so, despite the fact that both one and the other were instituted by Our Lord to confrm the brethren in Faith and Morals? I ask you, what prevents the Acts of Vatican II from deviating from the path of Tradition, when the Supreme Pastor himself can deny the teaching of his Predecessors? And if the persona Papae is in schism with the papacy, why could a council that wanted to be pastoral and abstained from promulgating dogmas not be able to contradict the other canonical councils, entering into a de facto schism with the Catholic Magisterium?

It’s true that this situation is a hapax, a case that in itself has never been seen in the history of the Church; but if this applies to the papacy – in a crescendo from Roncalli to Bergoglio – I do not see why it could not apply for Vatican II, which precisely thanks to the recent popes has set itself as an event in itself, and as such has been used by its proponents?

To use your words, “What the Church will end up with” is a Council that is a Council of the Catholic Church and, simultaneously, the de facto frst council, for all practical purposes, of a schismatic church, or the “conciliar church” that considers itself to have been born at Vatican II. Since Vatican II is both an ecumenical council and a “devil council” [conciliabolo], it retains the appearance of being a single Council, when in reality there are two. And I would add: one council was legitimate and orthodox and was aborted from birth with the subversion of the preparatory schemes, and one council was illegitimate and heretical (or at least favens haeresim) and is the one to which all of the Innovators refer, including Bergoglio, in order to legitimize their doctrinal, moral and liturgical deviations. Exactly as “many theologically dubious cardinals, bishops, priests, and theologians whom Francis supports and promotes to high ecclesial positions” maintain that the authority of the Vicar of Christ should be recognized in the acts of governance and magisterium performed by Jorge Mario, right at the moment in which with those acts he demonstrates himself “for all practical purposes schismatic.”

100 And if on the one hand it is very true that it is equally true – paraphrasing your words – that:

“while John XXIII and Paul VI may have stopped the modernists from doing things egregiously contrary to the Church’s teaching, they allowed them to do things that were ambiguously contrary, for such ambiguous teaching and pastoral practice were in accord with that of Roncalli and Montini.”

So it seems to me, Reverend Father, that you may fnd confrmation of what I afrmed in my essay at the origin of the disputatio on the Council, namely that the “container- council” was used to give apparent authority to a deliberately subversive event, exactly as today, right before our eyes, the Vicar of Christ is used to give apparent authoritativeness to a deliberately subversive operation. In both cases, the innate sense of respect towards the Church of Christ on the part of the faithful and the clergy is being used as an infernal stratagem – a Trojan horse introduced into the Sacred Citadel – in order to dissuade every form of dutiful dissent, every criticism, every legitimate denunciation.

It is painful to observe that this observation, far from rehabilitating Vatican II, confrms a profound crisis of the entire ecclesiastical institution, efected by the work of renegades who have abused their own authority against the Authority itself, of papal power against the papacy itself, and of the authority of the Conciliar Fathers against the Church herself. A devious and cowardly betrayal operated from within the Church herself, as Saint Pius X had already predicted and condemned in the Pascendi encyclical, indicating the modernists as the most harmful enemies of the Church.

Let’s not forget that Dante places the fraudulent in the Ninth Circle of Hell.

Receive, Reverend and dear Father Thomas, my blessing.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Original Source: Inside the Vatican

Translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino

______

July 22, 2020 Interview with Marco Tosatti https://youtu.be/H05-hTzaOOo

101 July 9, 2020 Prayer for the United States of America

Almighty and Eternal God, King of Kings and Lord of Lords: graciously turn your gaze to us who invoke you with confdence.

Bless us, citizens of the United States of America; grant peace and prosperity to our nation; illuminate those who govern us so that they may commit themselves to the common good, in respect for your holy law.

Protect those who, defending the inviolable principles of the natural law and your commandments, must face the repeated assaults of the enemy of the human race. Keep in the hearts of your children courage for the truth, love for virtue and perseverance in the midst of trials.

Make our families grow in the example that our Lord has given us, together with his most holy mother and Saint Joseph in the home of Nazareth; give to our fathers and mothers the gift of strength, to educate wisely the children with which you have blessed them. Give courage to those who, in spiritual combat, fght the good fght as soldiers of Christ against the furious forces of the children of darkness.

Keep each one of us, O Lord, in your most sacred heart, and above all he whom your providence has placed at the head of our nation.

Bless the president of the United States of America, so that aware of his responsibility and his duties, he may be a knight of justice, a defender of the oppressed, a frm bulwark against your enemies, and a proud supporter of the children of light.

Place the United States of America and the whole world under the mantle of the Queen of Victories, our unconquered leader in battle, the Immaculate Conception. It is thanks to her, and through your mercy, that the hymn of praise rises to you, O Lord, from the children whom you have redeemed in the most precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

July 6, 2020 Letter to Disenfranchised Nun about Trump

Noli aemulari in malignantibus, neque zelaveris facientes iniquitatem. [Do not be provoked by evildoers; do not envy those who do wrong. Ps 36:1]

Reverend Mother,

102 I have read the open letter that you sent to me last June 17, also on behalf of your community, a letter that you wrote following the letter that I sent to the President of the United States. Since you address yourself personally to me, I ask you to give me space on your site to respond to you. I remain bewildered by several expressions in your letter: not only those regarding me personally, but also the showy misrepresentation of reality in accusing President Trump of being

“the proponent of a policy that, in recent months, has shown itself to be increasingly discriminatory and violent, both with regard to the health emergency and these latest events of racism.”

In truth I do not see how one can make him responsible for the events of racism, which have arisen in a context in which the police and the local governments are in the hands of the Democratic Party, and which have been proven by evidence that little by little is emerging to have been orchestrated by the false fag fnanced by the globalist elites precisely in order to oppose the Republican party and the President currently in ofce. At the international level, Trump’s term of ofce is the only one for a long time in which the United States has not started any military conficts, and in many cases peace treaties have been established and foreign military deployments have been withdrawn. The economy was in strong growth (until the Covid emergency), and thus also the protection of the rights of workers.

If then you maintain that establishing publish order and demanding respect for the law is a discriminatory action, I fear that I have to remind you that civil authority has a moral duty to impose respect for the laws, and in order to do this it is permitted to use proportionate force: this doctrine is taught and wonderfully explained by Saint Thomas Aquinas, the patron of the Institute to which you belong. I do not believe that the President is “violent in words and also in actions,”certainly no more that those who in their own political program favor and support the killing of millions of children right up until the moment before birth and even after birth: this violence, much more hateful since it rages the most against those who are the most defenseless, does not appear to me to quite be in accord with your commitment as a religious sister.

You reprove me for using a “dualistic and discriminating language” – in fact, it is precisely that, and I think that it cannot be otherwise, when what it is in question is the eternal battle between good and evil. The Truth is always discriminatory when error places it into question. Light is also discriminatory, for it does not tolerate darkness or those who hide in it. Just as Our Lord, the stumbling stone, is discriminatory and divisive, who will gather the just to His right hand and drive out the wicked to His left. You are my friends, if you do what I command you, says the Lord (Jn 15:4). The condition for friendship with God is obedience to His Commandments and His Law, in the bond of Charity. This too is discriminatory, because those who abuse their own freedom and do not conform themselves to the will of God will not be able to rejoice in the beatifc vision, nor participate in His eternal glory. In the same way, the Sixth Commandment, which condemns sodomy as a sin that cries out for vengeance before the face of God, was given in a “homophobic and thus discriminatory mentality.” Saint Paul discriminated, just as Christ discriminated, and so too in Eden the Eternal Father discriminated, driving out

103 our frst parents who had disobeyed Him.

But if this discrimination made us through our own fault deserving of divine punishment, it also merited for us ever since the fall of our frst parents the promise of a Redeemer born of the Virgin, of a new Adam and a new Eve. It was this “dualist” vision that led our fathers toward the Promised Land, in the abandonment of idolatry and the adoration of the One True God. The Martyrs too discriminated when they preferred to face torment and torture rather than burn incense to idols. The Doctors of the Church, including the Angelic Doctor discriminated when they fought against heresies and preached true doctrine. Saint Dominic discriminated when he preached the Cross. You too, Reverend Mother, discriminate when you take positions against my words, against Trump, and against discrimination. You discriminate when you speak of “we women religious [donne religiose]” placing an accent on “women” that seems to want to claim a role that is not based on adhesion to the order willed by God nor to the admonition of the Apostle of the Gentiles.

You state:

“We ask to work together so that the humble and not the rich may be exalted; we ask that the powerful and bullies who humiliate and destroy the hope of peoples may exist no longer.”

You recall, Reverend Mother, that thehumble of whom the Gospel speaks are not necessarily those whom today’s world exploits for cynical projects of social engineering, nor the many who are torn from their Homeland in order to pander to the plans for destabilization that always enrich the usual people. And the rich are not always and necessarily evil: if Providence has granted them material goods, He asks them to become His cooperators in remembering the poor and needy. Nor are the powerful to be blamed, if their power is placed in service of the Good: it is those who abuse their power and the authority given to them who merit blame from the citizens and divine punishment. I fear that your words fnd too much space for the thinking of the world, rather than a supernatural vision supported by sound doctrine and fed by solid piety. In substance, the absence of an exterior and visible sign of your religious Vows appears to me to reveal implicitly your desire to hide your religious identity (perhaps in order not to ofend others’ sensibilities?), with the risk however of leaving yourself in an interior void that no ideology of this world will be able to fll. And yet it is precisely this that we ought to expect from a daughter of Saint Dominic and Saint Thomas: to ensure that the legitimate aspirations of the least ones fnd their own most authentic roots in Revelation, in the Christian social order, in the faithful application of the social doctrine of the Church. Because there is no Charity where there is no Truth: You teach me that they are both essential attributes of God, and it is not possible to love God if one does not also unconditionally welcome the integral Truth that He has transmitted to us in the Holy Church, the one Ark of Salvation. You write:

“It should be clear, however, that we are on the side of the weakest and oppressed, certain that it is only to them that the wisdom that the rulers of this world did not know has been revealed (cf. 1 Cor 2:8).”

104 I imagine that in that group of the weakest and oppressed you include the fathers and mothers of families who want to give a Christian education to their children; the many who are daily persecuted simply because they profess the Catholic faith; the millions of innocents that the modern Moloch sacrifces each day on the impure altar of abortion; the elderly whom economic interests and speculations condemn to abandonment or death because they are considered useless; the children ensnared in their most tender years by the infernal ideology of gender; the young people corrupted in their morality by LGBT thought; the elderly faithful of St. Louis who were assaulted a few days ago by a group of people who praise Black Lives Matter.

In conclusion, your open letter confrms what I have written many times: the alignments are being more clearly defned day by day, and this is certainly a tribute to the truth that permits many to understand what is really happening and which side each person intends to align with.

To you, Reverend Mother, and to Your Community I send my heartfelt blessing, entrusting myself to Your prayers.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Original Source: Terra e Missione Original Letter from Nun: Marcotosatti.com Translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino

______

July 3, 2020

Letter on Vatican II #3: Sandra Magister

Dear Mr. Magister, Permit me to reply to your article “Archbishop Viganò on the Brink of Schism,” published at Settimo Cielo on June 29.

I am aware that having dared to express an opinion strongly critical of the Council is sufcient to awaken the inquisitorial spirit that in other cases is the object of execration by right-thinking people. Nonetheless, in a respectful dispute between ecclesiastics and competent laity, it does not seem to me to be inappropriate to raise problems that remain unresolved to date, the foremost of which is the crisis that has aficted the Church since Vatican II and has now reached the point of devastation.

There are those who speak of the misrepresentation of the Council; others who speak of the need to return to reading it in continuity with the Tradition; others of the opportunity to correct any errors contained in it, or to interpret the equivocal points in a Catholic sense. On the opposing side, there is no lack of those who consider Vatican II as a blueprint from which to proceed in the revolution: the changing and transformation of the Church

105 into an entirely new and modern entity, in step with the times. This is part of the normal dynamics of a “dialogue” that is all too often invoked but rarely practiced: those who thus far have expressed dissent about what I have said have never entered into the merit of the argument, limiting themselves to saddling me with epithets that have already been merited by my far more illustrious and venerable brothers in the episcopate. It is curious that, both in the doctrinal as well as the political arena, the progressives claim for themselves a primacy, a state of election, that apodictically places the adversary in a position of ontological inferiority, unworthy of attention or response and simplistically liquidatable as Lefebvrian on the ecclesial front or fascist on the socio-political front. But their lack of arguments does not legitimize them to dictate the rules, nor to decide who has the right to speak, especially when reason, even prior to faith, has demonstrated where the deception is, who the author is, and what the purpose is.

At frst it appeared to me that the content of your article was to be considered more an understandable tribute to the Prince, who can be found in the frescoed salons of the Third Loggia or in the stylish ofces of the Editor; and yet in reading what you attribute to me I discovered an inaccuracy – let’s call it that – that I hope is the result of a misunderstanding. I therefore ask you to grant me space to reply at Settimo Cielo. You state that I have supposedly blamed Benedict XVI

“for having ‘deceived’ the whole Church in that he would have it be believed that the Second Vatican Council was immune to heresies and moreover should be interpreted in perfect continuity with true perennial doctrine.”

I do not think that I have ever written such a thing about the Holy Father; on the contrary: I said, and I reafrm, that we were all – or almost all – deceived by those who used the Council as a “container” equipped with its own implicit authority and the authoritativeness of the Fathers who took part in it, while distorting its purpose. And those who fell into this deception did so because, loving the Church and the Papacy, they could not imagine that in the heart of Vatican II a minority of very organized conspirators could use a Council to demolish the Church from within; and that in doing so they could count on the silence and inaction of Authority, if not on its complicity. These are historical facts, of which I permit myself to give a personal interpretation, but one which I think others may share.

I permit myself also to remind you, as if there was any need, that the positions of moderate critical re-reading of the Council in a traditional sense by Benedict XVI are part of a laudable recent past, while in the formidable Seventies the position of then- theologian Joseph Ratzinger was quite diferent. Authoritative studies stand alongside the same admissions of the Professor of Tubingen confrming the partial repentances of the Emeritus. Nor do I see a

“reckless indictment launched by Viganò against Benedict XVI for his ‘failed attempts to correct conciliar excesses by invoking the hermeneutic of continuity,’” since this is an opinion widely shared not only in conservative circles but also and above all among progressives. And it should be said that what the innovators succeeded in obtaining by means of deception, cunning and blackmail was the result of a vision that we have found later applied in the maximum degree in the Bergoglian “magisterium” of

106 Amoris Laetitia. The malicious intention is admitted by Ratzinger himself:

“The impression grew steadily that nothing was now stable in the Church, that everything was open to revision. More and more the Council appeared to be like a great Church parliament that could change everything and reshape everything according to its own desires” (cf. J. Ratzinger, Milestones, translation from the German by Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1997, p. 132).

But even more so by the words of the Dominican Edward Schillebeecks:

“We express it diplomatically [now], but after the Council we will draw the implicit conclusions” (De Bazuin, n.16, 1965).

We have confrmed that the intentional ambiguity in the texts had the purpose of keeping opposing and irreconcilable visions together, in the name of an evaluation of utility and to the detriment of revealed Truth. A Truth that, when it is integrally proclaimed, cannot fail to be divisive, just as Our Lord is divisive: “Do you think that I have come to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division” (Lk 12:51).

I do not fnd anything reprehensible in suggesting that we should forget Vatican II: its proponents knew how to confdently exercise this damnatio memoriae not just with a Council but with everything, even to the point of afrming that their council was the frst of the new church, and that beginning with their council the old religion and the old Masswas fnished. You will say to me that these are the positions of extremists, and that virtue stands in the middle, that is, among those who consider that Vatican II is only the latest of an uninterrupted series of events in which the Holy Spirit speaks through the mouth of the one and only infallible Magisterium. If so, it should be explained why the conciliar church was given a new liturgy and a new calendar, and consequently a new doctrine – nova lex orandi, nova lex credendi – distancing itself from its own past with disdain.

The mere idea of setting the Council aside causes scandal even in those, like you, who recognize the crisis of recent years, but who persist in not wanting to recognize the causal link between Vatican II and its logical and inevitable efects. You write:

“Attention: not the Council interpreted badly, but the Council as such and en bloc.”

I ask you then: what would be the correct interpretation of the Council? The one you give or the one given – while they wrote the decrees and declarations – by its very industrious architects? Or perhaps that of the German episcopate? Or that of the theologians who teach in the Pontifcal Universities and that we see published in the most popular Catholic periodicals in the world? Or that of Joseph Ratzinger? Or that of Bishop Schneider? Or that of Bergoglio? This would be enough to understand how much damage has been caused by the deliberate adoption of a language that was so murky that it legitimized

107 opposing and contrary interpretations, on the basis of which the famous conciliar springtimethen occurred. This is why I do not hesitate to say that that assembly should be forgotten “as such and en bloc,” and I claim the right to say it without thereby making myself guilty of the delict of schism for having attacked the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church is inseparably in Charity and in Truth, and where error reigns or even only worms its way in, there cannot be Charity.

The fairytale of the hermeneutic – even though an authoritative one because of its Author – nevertheless remains an attempt to want to give the dignity of a Council to a true and proper ambush against the Church, so as not to discredit along with it the Popes who wanted, imposed and reproposed that Council. So much so that those same Popes, one after the other, rise to the honors of the altar for having been “popes of the Council.”

Allow me to quote from the article that Doctor Maria Guarini published on June 29 at Chiesa e postconcilio in reaction to your piece at Settimo Cielo, entitled:

“Archbishop Viganò is not on the brink of schism: many sins are coming to a head.”

She writes:

“And it is precisely from here that is born and for this reason risks continuing – without results (thus far, except for the debate triggered by Archbishop Viganò) – the dialogue between deaf people, because the interlocutors use diferent reality grids: Vatican II, changing the language, has also changed the parameters of approach to reality. And so it happens that we talk about the same thing which, however, is given entirely diferent meanings. Among other things, the principal characteristic of the present hierarchy is the use of incontestable afrmations, without ever bothering to demonstrate them or with fawed and sophistic demonstrations. But they do not even have need of demonstrations, because the new approach and the new language have subverted everything from the beginning. And the unproven nature of the anomalous ‘pastorality’ without any defned theological principles is precisely what takes away the raw material of the dispute. It is the advance of a shapeless, ever-changing, dissolving fuid in place of the clear, unequivocal, defnitive truthful construct: the incandescent perennial frmness of dogma against the sewage and shifting sands of the transient neo- magisterium” (here)..

I continue to hope that the tone of your article was not dictated by the simple fact that I have dared to reopen the debate about that Council that many – too many – in the ecclesial structure, consider as an unicum in the history of the Church, almost an untouchable idol.

You may be certain that, unlike many bishops, such as those of the German Synodal Path, who have already gone far beyond the brink of schism – promoting and brazenly attempting to impose aberrant ideologies and practices on the universal Church – I have no desire to separate myself from Mother Church, for the exaltation of which I daily renew the ofering of my life.

Deus refugium nostrum et virtus,

108 populum ad Te clamantem propitius respice; Et intercedente Gloriosa et Immaculata Virgine Dei Genitrice Maria, cum Beato Ioseph, ejus Sponso, ac Beatis Apostolis Tuis, Petro et Paulo, et omnibus Sanctis, quas pro conversione peccatorum, pro libertate et exaltatione Sanctae Matris Ecclesiae, preces efundimus, misericors et benignus exaudi.

Receive, dear Sandro, my blessing and greeting, with best wishes for every good thing, in Christ Jesus. + Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop Original Source: Marcotosatti.com Letter From Sandro Magister: Settimo Cielo Translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino

June 14, 2020 Letter on Vatican II #2: Paolo Pasqualucci

Dear Doctor Guarini, I have received the observations of Professor Pasqualucci, which you kindly sent to me, and to which I will attempt to respond, as much as possible, in a concise way. Regarding the possibility of making a correction to the acts of the Second Vatican Council, I think that we can agree: the heretical propositions or those which favor heresy should be condemned, and we can only hope that this will happen as soon as possible. My objection to Bishop Schneider stems rather from my concern about the possibility that there will be preserved among the ofcial acts of the Church a hapax that, beyond ambiguous formulations of discontinuity, was intended and conceived for its subversive value, and which as such has caused many evils. From a legal point of view, the most suitable solution may perhaps be found; but from the pastoral point of view – that is, as regards the Council’s usefulness for the edifcation of the faithful – it is preferable to let the whole thing drop and be forgotten. And if it is true, as Professor Pasqualucci afrms, that the error is not doctrine, it is equally true that a condemnation of heterodox propositions would not remove the shadows that surround the whole undertaking of the Council as a complex whole, and which prejudice the entire corpus of its documents, nor would it remove the consequences that have derived from the Council. It should also be remembered that the event of the Council far surpasses the documents which it produced.

The mere fact that Vatican II is susceptible to correction ought to be sufcient to declare its oblivion as soon as its most obvious errors are seen with clarity. Not by chance does Professor Pasqualucci call it a “conciliabolo [devilish council],” like the Synod of Pistoia, which merited the condemnation of the entire synod beyond the mere condemnation of the individual errors which it taught. I make my own his statement:

“After having clearly highlighted the procedural subterfuges and the errors against the Faith scattered throughout the documents, a Pope could very well fnally quash

109 the entire Council, ‘thereby confrming his brethren in the Faith.’ This would fall perfectly within his summa potestas iurisdictionis over the entire Church, iure divino. The Council is not superior to the Pope. If the Council has deviated from the Faith, the Pope has the power to invalidate it. Indeed, it is his duty.”

Allow me to add that, faced with the disastrous situation in which the Church fnds herself and the many evils that afict her, long discourses among “specialists” appear inadequate and inconclusive. There is an urgent need to restore the Bride of Christ to her two- thousand-year Tradition and to recover the treasures that have been plundered and scattered, thus permitting the disoriented fock to be fully nourished by them.

Every discussion, amidst legitimate diferences of opinion, must not have as its goal any compromise with the distortions of the Truth, but rather that the Truth will fully triumph. Virtue is the right mean between two vices, like a peak between two valleys: this ought to be our goal.

It seems to me that from this fruitful exchange with my brother, Bishop Athanasius, what emerges is how much both of us have solely at heart the re-establishment of the Catholic Faith as the essential foundation for union in Charity. There is no confict, no opposition: our zeal springs from and grows in the Eucharistic Heart of Our Lord and returns to it so as to be consumed in love for Him.

Allow me, dear Doctor Guarini, to invite your readers to pray assiduously for their Pastors, and in particular for those who are living through the present crisis with travail and sufering and who are striving to fulfll the mandate they have received from their divine Master. In a moment in which we are all under attack, besieged on every side, it is necessary more than ever to come together with faith and humility underneath the mantle of she who commands us: love for the Queen of Victories who unites her children is the most evident proof that there cannot be and must not be divisions between us, which are the distinctive mark of the Enemy.

My blessing goes to you and to your readers, + Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Original Source: Catholic Family News Remarks From Sandro Magister: Catholic Family News Translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino

______

June 9, 2020 Letter on Vatican II #1: Schneider

I read with great interest the essay of His Excellency Athanasius Schneider published on LifeSiteNews on June 1, subsequently translated into Italian by Chiesa e post concilio,

110 entitled There is no divine positive will or natural right to the diversity of religions. His Excellency’s study summarizes, with the clarity that distinguishes the words of those who speak according to Christ, the objections against the presumed legitimacy of the exercise of religious freedom that the Second Vatican Council theorized, contradicting the testimony of Sacred Scripture and the voice of Tradition, as well as the Catholic Magisterium which is the faithful guardian of both.

The merit of His Excellency’s essay lies frst of all in its grasp of the causal link between the principles enunciated or implied by Vatican II and their logical consequent efect in the doctrinal, moral, liturgical, and disciplinary deviations that have arisen and progressively developed to the present day. The monstrum generated in modernist circles could have at frst been misleading, but it has grown and strengthened, so that today it shows itself for what it really is in its subversive and rebellious nature. The creature that was conceived at that time is always the same, and it would be naive to think that its perverse nature could change. Attempts to correct the conciliar excesses – invoking the hermeneutic of continuity – have proven unsuccessful: Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret [Drive nature out with a pitchfork; she will come right back] (Horace, Epist. I,10,24). The Abu Dhabi Declaration – and, as Bishop Schneider rightly observes, its frst symptoms in the pantheon of Assisi – “was conceived in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council” as Bergoglio proudly confrms. This “spirit of the Council” is the license of legitimacy that the innovators oppose to their critics, without realizing that it is precisely confessing that legacy that confrms not only the erroneousness of the present declarations but also the heretical matrix that supposedly justifes them. On closer inspection, never in the history of the Church has a Council presented itself as such a historic event that it was diferent from any other council: there was never talk of a “spirit of the Council of Nicea” or the “spirit of the Council of Ferrara-Florence,” even less the “spirit of the Council of Trent,” just as we never had a “post-conciliar” era after Lateran IV or Vatican I.

The reason is obvious: those Councils were all, indiscriminately, the expression in unison of the voice of Holy Mother Church, and for this very reason the voice of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Signifcantly, those who maintain the novelty of Vatican II also adhere to the heretical doctrine that places the God of the Old Testament in opposition to the God of the New Testament, as if there could be contradiction between the Divine Persons of the Most Holy Trinity. Evidently this opposition that is almost gnostic or cabbalistic is functional to the legitimization of a new subject that is voluntarily diferent and opposed to the Catholic Church. Doctrinal errors almost always betray some sort of Trinitarian heresy, and thus it is by returning to the proclamation of Trinitarian dogma that the doctrines that oppose it can be defeated: ut in confessione veræ sempiternæque deitatis, et in Personis proprietas, et in essentia unitas, et in majestate adoretur æqualitas: Professing the true and eternal Divinity, we adore what is proper to each Person, their unity in substance, and their equality in majesty.

Bishop Schneider cites several canons of the Ecumenical Councils that propose, in his opinion, doctrines that today are difcult to accept, such as for example the obligation to distinguish Jews by their clothing, or the ban on Christians serving Muslim or Jewish masters. Among these examples there is also the requirement of the traditio instrumentorum declared by the Council of Florence, which was later corrected by Pius

111 XII’s Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis. Bishop Athanasius comments: “One may rightly hope and believe that a future Pope or Ecumenical Council will correct the erroneous statement made” by Vatican II. This appears to me to be an argument that, although made with the best of intentions, undermines the Catholic edifce from its foundation. If in fact we admit that there may be Magisterial acts that, due to a changed sensitivity, are susceptible to abrogation, modifcation, or diferent interpretation with the passage of time, we inevitably fall under the condemnation of the Decree Lamentabili, and we end up ofering justifcation to those who, recently, precisely on the basis of that erroneous assumption, declared that the death penalty “does not conform to the Gospel,” and thus amended the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And, by the same principle, in a certain way we could maintain that the words of Blessed Pius IX in Quanta Cura were in some manner corrected by Vatican II, just as His Excellency hopes could happen for Dignitatis Humanae. Among the examples he presents, none of them is in itself gravely erroneous or heretical: the fact that the Council of Florence declared that the traditio instrumentorum was necessary for the validity of Orders did not in any way compromise priestly ministry in the Church, leading her to confer Orders invalidly. Nor does it seem to me that one can afrm that this aspect, however important, led to doctrinal errors on the part of the faithful, something which instead has occurred only with the most recent Council. And when in the course of history various heresies spread, the Church always intervened promptly to condemn them, as happened at the time of the Synod of Pistoia in 1786, which was in some way anticipatory of Vatican II, especially where it abolished Communion outside of Mass, introduced the vernacular tongue, and abolished the prayers of the Canon said submissa voce; but even more so when it theorized about the basis of episcopal collegiality, reducing the primacy of the pope to a mere ministerial function. Re-reading the acts of that Synod leaves us amazed at the literal formulation of the same errors that we fnd later, in increased form, in the Council presided over by John XXIII and Paul VI. On the other hand, just as the Truth comes from God, so error is fed by and feeds on the Adversary, who hates the Church of Christ and her heart: the Holy Mass and the Most Holy Eucharist.

There comes a moment in our life when, through the disposition of Providence, we are faced with a decisive choice for the future of the Church and for our eternal salvation. I speak of the choice between understanding the error into which practically all of us have fallen, almost always without evil intentions, and wanting to continue to look the other way or justify ourselves.

We have also committed the error, among others, of considering our interlocutors as people who, despite the diference of their ideas and their faith, were still motivated by good intentions and who would be willing to correct their errors if they could open up to our Faith. Together with numerous Council Fathers, we thought of ecumenism as a process, an invitation that calls dissidents to the one Church of Christ, idolaters and pagans to the one True God, and the Jewish people to the promised Messiah. But from the moment it was theorized in the conciliar commissions, ecumenism was confgured in a way that was in direct opposition to the doctrine previously expressed by the Magisterium.

We have thought that certain excesses were only an exaggeration of those who allowed themselves to be swept up in enthusiasm for novelty; we sincerely believed that seeing

112 John Paul II surrounded by charmers-healers , Buddhist monks, imams, rabbis, protestant pastors, and other heretics gave proof of the Church’s ability to summon people together in order to ask God for peace, while the authoritative example of this action initiated a deviant succession of pantheons that were more or less ofcial, even to the point of seeing Bishops carrying the unclean idol of the pachamama on their shoulders, sacrilegiously concealed under the pretext of being a representation of sacred motherhood.

But if the image of an infernal divinity was able to enter into Saint Peter’s, this is part of a cresecendo which the other side foresaw from the beginning. Numerous practicing Catholics, and perhaps also a majority of Catholic clergy, are today convinced that the Catholic Faith is no longer necessary for eternal salvation; they believe that the One and Triune God revealed to our fathers is the same as the god of Mohammed. Already twenty years ago we heard this repeated from pulpits and episcopal cathedrae, but recently we hear it being afrmed with emphasis even from the highest Throne.

We know well that, invoking the saying in Scripture Littera enim occidit, spiritus autem vivifcat [The letter brings death, but the spirit gives life (2 Cor 3:6)], the progressives and modernists astutely knew how to hide equivocal expressions in the conciliar texts, which at the time appeared harmless to most but that today are revealed in their subversive value. It is the method employed in the use of the phrase subsistit in: saying a half-truth not so much as not to ofend the interlocutor (assuming that is licit to silence the truth of God out of respect for His creature), but with the intention of being able to use the half- error that would be instantly dispelled if the entire truth were proclaimed. Thus “Ecclesia Christi subsistit in Ecclesia Catholica” does not specify the identity of the two, but the subsistence of one in the other and, for consistency, also in other churches: here is the opening to interconfessional celebrations, ecumenical prayers, and the inevitable end of any need for the Church in the order of salvation, in her unicity, and in her missionary nature.

Some may remember that the frst ecumenical gatherings were held with the schismatics of the East, and very prudently with other Protestant sects. Apart from Germany, Holland, and Switzerland, in the beginning the countries of Catholic tradition did not welcome mixed celebrations with Protestant pastors and Catholic priests together. I recall that at the time there was talk of removing the penultimate doxology from the Veni Creator so as not to ofend the Orthodox, who do not accept the Filioque. Today we hear the surahs of the Koran recited from the pulpits of our churches, we see an idol of wood adored by religious sisters and brothers, we hear Bishops disavow what up until yesterday seemed to us to be the most plausible excuses of so many extremisms. What the world wants, at the instigation of Masonry and its infernal tentacles, is to create a universal religion that is humanitarian and ecumenical, from which the jealous God whom we adore is banished. And if this is what the world wants, any step in the same direction by the Church is an unfortunate choice which will turn against those who believe that they can jeer at God. The hopes of the Tower of Babel cannot be brought back to life by a globalist plan that has as its goal the cancellation of the Catholic Church, in order to replace it with a confederation of idolaters and heretics united by environmentalism and universal brotherhood. There can be no brotherhood except in Christ, and only in Christ: qui non est mecum, contra me est.

113 It is disconcerting that few people are aware of this race towards the abyss, and that few realize the responsibility of the highest levels of the Church in supporting these anti- Christian ideologies, as if the Church’s leaders want to guarantee that they have a place and a role on the bandwagon of aligned thought. And it is surprising that people persist in not wanting to investigate the root causes of the present crisis, limiting themselves to deploring the present excesses as if they were not the logical and inevitable consequence of a plan orchestrated decades ago. If the pachamama could be adored in a church, we owe it to Dignitatis Humanae. If we have a liturgy that is Protestantized and at times even paganized, we owe it to the revolutionary action of Msgr. Annibale Bugnini and to the post-conciliar reforms. If the Abu Dhabi Declaration was signed, we owe it to Nostra Aetate. If we have come to the point of delegating decisions to the Bishops’ Conferences – even in grave violation of the Concordat, as happened in Italy – we owe it to collegiality, and to its updated version, synodality. Thanks to synodality, we found ourselves with Amoris Laetitia having to look for a way to prevent what was obvious to everyone from appearing: that this document, prepared by an impressive organizational machine, intended to legitimize Communion for the divorced and cohabiting, just as Querida Amazonia will be used to legitimize women priests (as in the recent case of an “episcopal vicaress” in Freiburg) and the abolition of Sacred Celibacy. The Prelates who sent the Dubia to Francis, in my opinion, demonstrated the same pious ingenuousness: thinking that Bergoglio, when confronted with the reasonably argued contestation of the error, would understand, correct the heterodox points, and ask for forgiveness. The Council was used to legitimize the most aberrant doctrinal deviations, the most daring liturgical innovations, and the most unscrupulous abuses, all while Authority remained silent. This Council was so exalted that it was presented as the only legitimate reference for Catholics, clergy, and bishops, obscuring and connoting with a sense of contempt the doctrine that the Church had always authoritatively taught, and prohibiting the perennial liturgy that for millennia had nourished the faith of an uninterrupted line of faithful, martyrs, and saints. Among other things, this Council has proven to be the only one that has caused so many interpretative problems and so many contradictions with respect to the preceding Magisterium, while there is not one other council – from the Council of Jerusalem to Vatican I – that does not harmonize perfectly with the entire Magisterium or that needs so much interpretation.

I confess it with serenity and without controversy: I was one of the many people who, despite many perplexities and fears which today have proven to be absolutely legitimate, trusted the authority of the Hierarchy with unconditional obedience. In reality, I think that many people, including myself, did not initially consider the possibility that there could be a confict between obedience to an order of the Hierarchy and fdelity to the Church herself. What made tangible this unnatural, indeed I would even say perverse, separation between the Hierarchy and the Church, between obedience and fdelity, was certainly this most recent Pontifcate.

In the Room of Tears adjacent to the Sistine Chapel, while Msgr. Guido Marini prepared the white rocchetto, mozzetta, and stole for the frst appearance of the “newly elected” Pope, Bergoglio exclaimed: “Sono fnite le carnevalate! [The carnivals are over!],” scornfully refusing the insignia that all the Popes up until then had humbly accepted as the distinguishing garb of the Vicar of Christ. But those words contained truth, even if it

114 was spoken involuntarily: on March 13, 2013, the mask fell from the conspirators, who were fnally free of the inconvenient presence of Benedict XVI and brazenly proud of having fnally succeeded in promoting a Cardinal who embodied their ideals, their way of revolutionizing the Church, of making doctrine malleable, morals adaptable, liturgy adulterable, and discipline disposable. And all this was considered, by the protagonists of the conspiracy themselves, the logical consequence and obvious application of Vatican II, which according to them had been weakened by the critiques expressed by Benedict XVI. The greatest afront of that Pontifcate was the liberally permitting the celebration of the venerated Tridentine Liturgy, the legitimacy of which was fnally recognized, disproving ffty years of its illegitimate ostracization. It is no accident that Bergoglio’s supporters are the same people who saw the Council as the frst event of a new church, prior to which there was an old religion with an old liturgy.

It is no accident: what these men afrm with impunity, scandalizing moderates, is what Catholics also believe, namely: that despite all the eforts of the hermeneutic of continuity which shipwrecked miserably at the frst confrontation with the reality of the present crisis, it is undeniable that from Vatican II onwards a parallel church was built, superimposed over and diametrically opposed to the true Church of Christ. This parallel church progressively obscured the divine institution founded by Our Lord in order to replace it with a spurious entity, corresponding to the desired universal religion that was frst theorized by Masonry. Expressions like new humanism, universal fraternity, dignity of man, are the watchwords of philanthropic humanitarianism which denies the true God, of horizontal solidarity of vague spiritualist inspiration and of ecumenical irenism that the Church unequivocally condemns. “Nam et loquela tua manifestum te facit [Even your speech gives you away]” (Mt 26, 73): this very frequent, even obsessive recourse to the same vocabulary of the enemy betrays adherence to the ideology he inspires; while on the other hand the systematic renunciation of the clear, unequivocal and crystalline language of the Church confrms the desire to detach itself not only from the Catholic form but even from its substance.

What we have for years heard enunciated, vaguely and without clear connotations, from the highest Throne, we then fnd elaborated in a true and proper manifesto in the supporters of the present Pontifcate: the democratization of the Church, no longer through the collegiality invented by Vatican II but by the synodal path inaugurated by the Synod on the Family; the demolition of the ministerial priesthood through its weakening with exceptions to ecclesiastical celibacy and the introduction of feminine fgures with quasi-sacerdotal duties; the silent passage from ecumenism directed towards separated brethren to a form of pan-ecumenism that reduces the Truth of the One Triune God to the level of idolatries and the most infernal superstitions; the acceptance of an interreligious dialogue that presupposes religious relativism and excludes missionary proclamation; the demythologization of the Papacy, pursued by Bergoglio as a theme of his pontifcate; the progressive legitimization of all that is politically correct: gender theory, sodomy, homosexual marriage, Malthusian doctrines, ecologism, immigrationism… If we do not recognize that the roots of these deviations are found in the principles laid down by the Council, it will be impossible to fnd a cure: if our diagnosis persists, against all the evidence, in excluding the initial pathology, we cannot prescribe a suitable therapy. This operation of intellectual honesty requires a great humility, frst of all in recognizing that for decades we have been led into error, in good faith, by people who, established in

115 authority, have not known how to watch over and guard the fock of Christ: some for the sake of living quietly, some because of having too many commitments, some out of convenience, and fnally some in bad faith or even malicious intent. These last ones who have betrayed the Church must be identifed, taken aside, invited to amend and, if they do not repent they must be expelled from the sacred enclosure. This is how a true Shepherd acts, who has the well-being of the sheep at heart and who gives his life for them; we have had and still have far too many mercenaries, for whom the consent of the enemies of Christ is more important than fdelity to his Spouse.

Just as I honestly and serenely obeyed questionable orders sixty years ago, believing that they represented the loving voice of the Church, so today with equal serenity and honesty I recognize that I have been deceived. Being coherent today by persevering in error would represent a wretched choice and would make me an accomplice in this fraud. Claiming a clarity of judgment from the beginning would not be honest: we all knew that the Council would be more or less a revolution, but we could not have imagined that it would prove to be so devastating, even for the work of those who should have prevented it. And if up until Benedict XVI we could still imagine that the coup d’état of Vatican II (which Cardinal Suenens called “the 1789 of the Church”) had experienced a slowdown, in these last few years even the most ingenuous among us have understood that silence for fear of causing a schism, the efort to repair papal documents in a Catholic sense in order to remedy their intended ambiguity, the appeals and dubia made to Francis that remained eloquently unanswered, are all a confrmation of the situation of the most serious apostasy to which the highest levels of the Hierarchy are exposed, while the Christian people and the clergy feel hopelessly abandoned and that they are regarded by the bishops almost with annoyance.

The Abu Dhabi Declaration is the ideological manifesto of an idea of peace and cooperation between religions that could have some possibility of being tolerated if it came from pagans who are deprived of the light of Faith and the fre of Charity. But whoever has the grace of being a Child of God in virtue of Holy Baptism should be horrifed at the idea of being able to construct a blasphemous modern version of the Tower of Babel, seeking to bring together the one true Church of Christ, heir to the promises made to the Chosen People, with those who deny the Messiah and with those who consider the very idea of a Triune God to be blasphemous. The love of God knows no measure and does not tolerate compromises, otherwise it simply is not Charity, without which it is not possible to remain in Him: qui manet in caritate, in Deo manet, et Deus in eo [whoever remains in love remains in God and God in him] (1 Jn 4:16). It matters little whether it is a declaration or a Magisterial document: we know well that the subversive mens of the innovators plays games with these sort of quibbles in order to spread error. And we know well that the purpose of these ecumenical and interreligious initiatives is not to convert those who are far from the one Church to Christ, but to divert and corrupt those who still hold the Catholic Faith, leading them to believe that it is desirable to have a great universal religion that brings together the three great Abrahamic religions “in a single house”: this is the triumph of the Masonic plan in preparation for the kingdom of the Antichrist! Whether this materializes through a dogmatic Bull, a declaration or an interview with Scalfari in La Repubblica matters little, because Bergoglio’s supporters wait for his words as a signal to which they respond with a series of initiatives that have already been prepared and organized for some time. And if

116 Bergoglio does not follow the directions he has received, ranks of theologians and clergy are ready to lament over the “solitude of Pope Francis” as a premise for his resignation (I think for example of Massimo Faggioli in one of his recent essays). On the other hand, it would not be the frst time that they use the Pope when he goes along with their plans and get rid of him or attack him as soon as he does not.

Last Sunday, the Church celebrated the Most Holy Trinity, and in the Breviary it ofers us the recitation of the Symbolum Athanasianum, now outlawed by the conciliar liturgy and already reduced to only two occasions in the liturgical reform of 1962. The frst words of that now-disappeared Symbolum remain inscribed in letters of gold:

“Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est ut teneat Catholicam fdem; quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit – Whosoever wishes to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith; For unless a person shall have kept this faith whole and inviolate, without doubt he shall eternally perish.”

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Original Source: Inside the Vatican Translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino

June 7, 2020 Letter #1 to President Donald Trump

Mr. President, In recent months we have been witnessing the formation of two opposing sides that I would call Biblical: the children of light and the children of darkness. The children of light constitute the most conspicuous part of humanity, while the children of darkness represent an absolute minority. And yet the former are the object of a sort of discrimination which places them in a situation of moral inferiority with respect to their adversaries, who often hold strategic positions in government, in politics, in the economy and in the media. In an apparently inexplicable way, the good are held hostage by the wicked and by those who help them either out of self-interest or fearfulness. These two sides, which have a Biblical nature, follow the clear separation between the ofspring of the Woman and the ofspring of the Serpent. On the one hand there are those who, although they have a thousand defects and weaknesses, are motivated by the desire to do good, to be honest, to raise a family, to engage in work, to give prosperity to their homeland, to help the needy, and, in obedience to the Law of God, to merit the

117 Kingdom of Heaven. On the other hand, there are those who serve themselves, who do not hold any moral principles, who want to demolish the family and the nation, exploit workers to make themselves unduly wealthy, foment internal divisions and wars, and accumulate power and money: for them the fallacious illusion of temporal well-being will one day – if they do not repent – yield to the terrible fate that awaits them, far from God, in eternal damnation.

In society, Mr. President, these two opposing realities co-exist as eternal enemies, just as God and Satan are eternal enemies. And it appears that the children of darkness – whom we may easily identify with the deep state which you wisely oppose and which is fercely waging war against you in these days – have decided to show their cards, so to speak, by now revealing their plans. They seem to be so certain of already having everything under control that they have laid aside that circumspection that until now had at least partially concealed their true intentions. The investigations already under way will reveal the true responsibility of those who managed the Covid emergency not only in the area of health care but also in politics, the economy, and the media. We will probably fnd that in this colossal operation of social engineering there are people who have decided the fate of humanity, arrogating to themselves the right to act against the will of citizens and their representatives in the governments of nations.

We will also discover that the riots in these days were provoked by those who, seeing that the virus is inevitably fading and that the social alarm of the pandemic is waning, necessarily have had to provoke civil disturbances, because they would be followed by repression which, although legitimate, could be condemned as an unjustifed aggression against the population. The same thing is also happening in Europe, in perfect synchrony. It is quite clear that the use of street protests is instrumental to the purposes of those who would like to see someone elected in the upcoming presidential elections who embodies the goals of the deep state and who expresses those goals faithfully and with conviction. It will not be surprising if, in a few months, we learn once again that hidden behind these acts of vandalism and violence there are those who hope to proft from the dissolution of the social order so as to build a world without freedom: Solve et Coagula, as the Masonic adage teaches. Although it may seem disconcerting, the opposing alignments I have described are also found in religious circles. There are faithful Shepherds who care for the fock of Christ, but there are also mercenary infdels who seek to scatter the fock and hand the sheep over to be devoured by ravenous wolves. It is not surprising that these mercenaries are allies of the children of darkness and hate the children of light: just as there is a deep state, there is also a deep church that betrays its duties and forswears its proper commitments before God. Thus the Invisible Enemy, whom good rulers fght against in public afairs, is also fought against by good shepherds in the ecclesiastical sphere. It is a spiritual battle, which I spoke about in my recent Appeal which was published on May 8.

For the frst time, the United States has in you a President who courageously defends the right to life, who is not ashamed to denounce the persecution of Christians throughout the world, who speaks of Jesus Christ and the right of citizens to freedom of worship. Your participation in the March for Life, and more recently your proclamation of the month of April as National Child Abuse Prevention Month, are actions that confrm which side you wish to fght on. And I dare to believe that both of us are on the same side in this battle,

118 albeit with diferent weapons.

For this reason, I believe that the attack to which you were subjected after your visit to the National Shrine of Saint John Paul II is part of the orchestrated media narrative which seeks not to fght racism and bring social order, but to aggravate dispositions; not to bring justice, but to legitimize violence and crime; not to serve the truth, but to favor one political faction. And it is disconcerting that there are Bishops – such as those whom I recently denounced – who, by their words, prove that they are aligned on the opposing side. They are subservient to the deep state, to globalism, to aligned thought, to the New World Order which they invoke ever more frequently in the name of a universal brotherhood which has nothing Christian about it, but which evokes the Masonic ideals of those want to dominate the world by driving God out of the courts, out of schools, out of families, and perhaps even out of churches.

The American people are mature and have now understood how much the mainstream media does not want to spread the truth but seeks to silence and distort it, spreading the lie that is useful for the purposes of their masters. However, it is important that the good – who are the majority – wake up from their sluggishness and do not accept being deceived by a minority of dishonest people with unavowable purposes. It is necessary that the good, the children of light, come together and make their voices heard. What more efective way is there to do this, Mr. President, than by prayer, asking the Lord to protect you, the United States, and all of humanity from this enormous attack of the Enemy? Before the power of prayer, the deceptions of the children of darkness will collapse, their plots will be revealed, their betrayal will be shown, their frightening power will end in nothing, brought to light and exposed for what it is: an infernal deception.

Mr. President, my prayer is constantly turned to the beloved American nation, where I had the privilege and honor of being sent by Pope Benedict XVI as Apostolic Nuncio. In this dramatic and decisive hour for all of humanity, I am praying for you and also for all those who are at your side in the government of the United States. I trust that the American people are united with me and you in prayer to Almighty God.

United against the Invisible Enemy of all humanity, I bless you and the First Lady, the beloved American nation, and all men and women of good will.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

______

May 29, 2020 Letter to Cloistered Religious Sister

Dear Sister, Thank you very much for your letter, which I read attentively. I fully share your clear and realistic vision of the present situation of crisis that involves the Church and the world.

119 With a supernatural gaze, corroborated by Sacred Scripture and various messages of Our Lady, we can understand that in this moment we can now see with greater clarity the real dimension of the epochal clash between Good and Evil, between the sons of Light and the sons of Darkness. What leaves one truly scandalized is seeing how the top levels of the Hierarchy are openly placing themselves at the service of the Prince of this world, adopting the demands made by the United Nations for the globalist agenda, Masonic brotherhood, Malthusian ecologism, immigrationism… What is being created is a single world religion without dogmas or morals, according to the wishes of Freemasonry…it is obvious that Bergoglio, along with those who are behind him and support him, aspires to preside over this infernal parody of the Church of Christ.

I am sure that you have also noticed, dear Sister, the insistence of so many Prelates and of Catholic media on the presumed necessity of a New World Order: Cardinals and Bishops have spoken about it, as well as La Civiltà Cattolica, Vatican News, Avvenire and L’Osservatore Romano, with the arrogance of those who are able to say things that were once unheard of [in Catholic circles] thanks to the protection they enjoy [from the leadership of the hierarchy]. But on closer look, the ability of the wicked to move and act, to conceal their intentions, is much less than frst thought: they are so certain of having already reached their objective that they have openly revealed their intentions with arrogance and ostentation, laying aside the prudence and astuteness that formerly permitted them to remain hidden. Behold how openly the proponents of world government and the élites who want to impose their tyranny on the peoples may now be seen; behold how, along with them, a neo-paganism is also openly revealing itself as the religious arm of this tyranny, defned by some as green apostasy. We know who they are, what motivates their actions and what their goals are: behind them there is always the Prince of this world, against whom the Queen of Victories leads our battered militias, together with the far greater and terrible army of celestial hosts. But since we have already chosen what side we are on in the feld of battle, we must not fear, because Our Lord has already conquered, while he ofers us the precious opportunity to weave for ourselves an especially glorious crown in these apocalyptic days.

I believe that the essential point for efectively conducting a spiritual, doctrinal and moral battle against the enemies of the Church is the persuasion that the present crisis is the metastasis of the conciliar cancer: If we have not understood the causal relationship between Vatican II and its logical and necessary consequences over the course of the last sixty years, it will not be possible to steer the rudder of the Church back to the direction given it by her Divine Helmsman, the course that it maintained for two thousand years. For decades they catechized us with the hateful phrase “there is no going back” with regard to the Liturgy, the Faith, moral teaching, penance, asceticism. Today we hear the same expressions slavishly repeated in the civil sphere, through which the attempt is made to indoctrinate the masses that “nothing will be as it was before.” Modernism and Covid-19 are part of the same brand, and for anyone who has their gaze towards the transcendent it is not difcult to understand that the greatest fear of those who want us to believe that the race towards the abyss is both unavoidable and unstoppable is that we will not believe them, ignore them, and unmask their conspiracy. This is our duty, today: to open the eyes of many people, both clergy and religious, who have not yet put together the overall picture, limiting themselves to looking at reality only in a partial and

120 disjointed way. As soon as we have helped them to understand the mechanism, they will understand everything else.

It is possible to go back, dear Sister, it is possible to do so in such a way that the good that was fraudulently taken from us may be restored: but only in the coherence of doctrine, without compromises, without yielding, without opportunism. The Lord will deign to grant us a share in his victory, even if we are weak and without material means, only if we will abandon ourselves totally to him and to His Most Holy Mother.

I entrust myself to your prayers and to the prayers of your fellow Sisters, and I bless you and your entire community from my heart.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Original Source: Marcotosatti.com Original Letter from Cloistered Nun: Marcotosatti.com Translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino

May 08, 2020 On Cardinal Sarah's Withdrawal from Appeal

Subject: His Eminence Cardinal Robert Sarah’s withdrawal of ofcial support from the “Appeal for the Church and the World,” released yesterday, May 7.

At this time of serious crisis that the Church and the world are passing through, it is my wish to abide by an attitude of deep charity towards my brother in Christ, Cardinal Robert Sarah, whom I immediately forgave for the grave wrong he committed against the truth and my person. Genuine charity, however, cannot disregard the truth, since it has its foundation in it. I therefore have the duty, also for the sake of fraternal correction, to make known the series of events as they occurred, with regard to Cardinal Sarah’s signing of the Appeal.

Monday, May 4, at 4:00 p.m. I had a telephone conversation with His Eminence, Cardinal Sarah. The call was recorded and lasted 6 minutes and 25 seconds.

Regarding the text of the Appeal, the Cardinal said:

“It seems to me a very serious matter. I think that this Appeal will do much good, because it will make us refect and take a position: I agree that it should be published as soon as possible.”

121 I then asked His Eminence if he intended to sign it. The Cardinal replied:

“Yes, I agree to put my name to it, because this is a fght that we must engage in together, not only for the Catholic Church but for all mankind.”

Thursday, May 7 At 8:43 a.m. I telephoned His Eminence, to ask him if he had a telephone number for Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, which he later kindly sent to me by SMS. During this telephone call, which lasted 4 minutes, Cardinal Sarah made no reference to his wish to withdraw his signature.

At 3:00 p.m. I began to send out the text of the Appeal with the list of signatories, including Cardinal Sarah, to press agencies, blogs and various newspapers.

At 5:48 p.m. I received a text message from the Cardinal, but only became aware of it about an hour and a half later. At the time the message was sent, I was totally absorbed in the work of disseminating the Appeal and I did not see the arrival of His Eminence’s message and therefore was not able immediately to become aware of its contents.

At 7:37 p.m. the Cardinal telephoned me asking if I had seen his message. I said no. This is the text of the message sent to me by the Cardinal:

“Dearest Excellency, as I am still working in the Roman Curia, some friends of mine advised me not to sign your proposed Appeal. Perhaps it would be better to remove my name this time. I am very sorry. You know my friendship and my closeness to you. Thank you for your understanding. Robert Card. Sarah.”

The cardinal informed me in his telephone call that he intended to remove his name from the list of signatories. I was terribly sorry and pointed out to His Eminence that the Appeal and the signatures had already been circulated “universally” for more than four hours.

The conversation ended without His Eminence requesting or suggesting any solution. One could, for example, have agreed on a “joint statement” in which the Cardinal’s decision to withdraw his signature was made public. None of this was done. We cordially said goodbye expressing our esteem and mutual support. Faced with this de facto situation, to which neither he nor I were able to fnd a solution, I took the liberty of encouraging His Eminence, pointing out to him how much his support of the Appeal would be of comfort and encouragement to a great many faithful. With surprise and deep regret, I then learned that His Eminence had used his twitter account, without giving me any notice, to make statements that cause serious harm to the truth and to my person.

I am very sorry that this matter, which is due to human weakness, and for which I bear no resentment towards the person who caused it, has distracted our attention from what must seriously concern us at this dramatic moment.

122 I confrm that the name of His Eminence Cardinal Robert Sarah has been promptly removed from the ofcial website of the Appeal, as can be seen at: www.veritasliberabitvos.info. + Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Original Source: Marcotosatti.com

______

Letter #7: Viganó on the (Unrevealed) Third Secret of Fatima

Interview with Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganó

Your Excellency, thank you so much for giving us this interview. The COVID-19 epidemic has, in recent months, afected the lives of millions of people and even caused the deaths of many. In light of this situation, the Church, through the Episcopal Conferences, has decided to close practically all churches and deprive the faithful of access to the Sacraments. On March 27th, in front of an empty St. Peter’s Square, Pope Francis, acting in a manifestly mediatic [i.e., media-conscious] way, presided over a hypothetical prayer for humanity. There were many reactions to the way the Pope acted in that moment, one of which tried to associate the solitary presence of Francis with the Message of Fatima, i.e., the third secret. Do you agree?

Archbishop Viganó: Allow me frst of all to tell you that I am pleased to give this interview for the faithful of Portugal, whom the Blessed Virgin has promised to preserve in the Faith even in these times of great trial. You are a people with a great responsibility, because you may soon fnd yourself having to guard the sacred fre of Religion while other nations refuse to recognize Christ as their King and Mary Most Holy as their Queen.

The third part of the message that Our Lady entrusted to the shepherd children of Fatima, so that they could deliver it to the Holy Father, remains secret to this day. Our Lady asked for it to be revealed in 1960, but John XXIII had a communiqué published on February 8th of that year in which he stated that the Church “does not wish to take on the responsibility of guaranteeing the truthfulness of the words that the three shepherd children said the Virgin Mary spoke to them.” With this distancing [of the Vatican] from the message of the Queen of Heaven, a cover-up operation was started, evidently because the content of the message would have revealed the terrible conspiracy against the Church of Christ by its enemies. Until a few decades ago it would have seemed incredible that we would reach the point that even Our Lady could be silenced, but in recent years we have also witnessed attempts to censor the Gospel itself, which is the Word of Her divine Son.

In 2000, during the pontifcate of John Paul II, Cardinal Sodano presented as the Third Secret a version of his own that in several elements appeared clearly incomplete. It is not surprising that the new Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone, sought to draw attention away to an event in the past [the assassination attempt on John Paul on May 13, 1981] to cause the people of God to believe that the words of the Virgin [in 1917 when she

123 appeared] had nothing to do with the crisis of the Church [in the decades after 1960] and the marriage of modernists and Freemasonry that was contracted behind the scenes at the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Antonio Socci, who has carefully investigated the Third Secret, unmasked this harmful behavior on the part of Cardinal Bertone. In addition, it was Bertone himself who heavily discredited and censured the Madonnina delle Lacrime (Madonna of Tears) of Civitavecchia, whose message perfectly agrees with what she said at Fatima.

Let us not forget Our Lady’s unheeded appeal for the Pope and all the Bishops to consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart, as a condition for the defeat of Communism and atheistic materialism: consecrate not “the world,” not “the nation which You want us to consecrate to You,” but “Russia.” Was it so costly to do that?

Evidently so, for those who do not have a supernatural gaze. It was preferred to walk the path of détente with the Soviet regime, inaugurated by Roncalli [Pope John XXIII, whose baptismal name was Angelo Roncalli] himself, without understanding that without God no peace is possible. Today, with a President of the Russian Confederation who is certainly a Christian, the Virgin’s request could be granted, averting further misfortunes for the Church and the world.

In the middle of Holy Week and after the Pan-Amazonian Synod, the Pope decided to establish a commission to discuss and study the female diaconate in the Catholic Church. Do you believe that this is meant to pave the way for the ordination of women or is, in other words, an attempt to tamper with the Priesthood established by Our Lord Jesus Christ on Holy Thursday?

Archbishop Viganó: It is not possible, and will never be possible, for the Sacred Order to be modifed in its essence. The attack on the Priesthood has always been at the center of the actions of the heretics and their inspirer, and it is understandable why this is the case: a blow to the Priesthood means the destruction of the Holy Mass and the Most Holy Eucharist and the entire sacramental edifce.

Among the sworn enemies of the Sacred Order there were also the modernists, of course, who, from the 19th century on, theorized about a Church without priests, or with priests and priestesses. These delusions, which were foreshadowed by some exponents of Modernism in France, subtly re-emerged at the Council, with an attempt to insinuate a certain equivalence between the ministerial priesthood deriving from Holy Orders and the common priesthood of the faithful deriving from Baptism.

It is signifcant that, precisely by playing on this intentional ambiguity, the reformed liturgy [i.e., the new Mass, introduced after the Council] also sufered from the doctrinal error of Lumen Gentium and ended up reducing the ordained Minister to the [status of a] simple president of an assembly of priests. To the contrary; the priest is an alter Christus, not by popular designation, but by ontological confguration to the High Priest, Jesus Christ, whom he must imitate in the holiness of his life and in his absolute dedication represented also by Celibacy.

The next step had to necessarily be taken, if not by annulling the Priesthood itself, at least by making it inefective by extending it to women, who cannot be ordained: exactly what

124 happened in the Protestant and Anglican sects, which today also experience the embarrassing situation of having lesbian female bishops in the so-called Church of England. But it is clear that the ecumenical “pretext” — that is, drawing closer to dissident communities by acquiring even their most recent errors — is based on Satan’s hatred for the Priesthood and would inevitably lead the Church of Christ to ruin.

On the other hand, ecclesiastical Celibacy is also the object of the same attack, because it is distinctive of the Catholic Church and constitutes a precious defense of the Priesthood that Tradition has jealously guarded through the centuries.

The attempt to introduce a form of ordained female ministry within the Church is not recent, despite repeated statements by the Magisterium. John Paul II also unequivocally defned, and with all the canonical requirements of an infallible ex Cathedra declaration, that it is absolutely impossible to question the doctrine on this subject. But just as it was possible to fddle with [metter mano] the Catechism to declare the death penalty “not in conformity with the Gospel” — something unheard of and heretical — so today an attempt is being made to create ex novo some form of female diaconate, evidently preparatory to a future introduction of the female priesthood.

The frst commission created by Bergoglio years ago gave a negative opinion, confrming what should not even have been the subject of discussion; but if that commission could not obey the wishes of Francis, this does not mean that another commission, whose members, chosen by him, are more “docile” and relaxed in demolishing another pillar of the Catholic Faith, may not do so. I do not doubt that Bergoglio has persuasive methods and that he can exert pressure on the theological commission; but I am equally certain that in the unfortunate event that this consultative body were to give a favorable opinion, it would not necessarily require an ofcial declaration by the Pope to see a multiplying of deaconesses in the dioceses of Germany or Holland, with Rome remaining silent. The method is well known, and on the one hand it makes it possible to strike at the priesthood while on the other it gives a convenient alibi to those within the ecclesiastical structure who can always appeal to the fact that “the Pope has not allowed anything new.” They did likewise by authorizing the Episcopal Conferences to legislate autonomously about Communion in the hand, which, imposed by abuse, has now become universal practice.

It should be said that this will to promote women in the hierarchy betrays the urge [of such movements within the Church] to follow the modern mentality that has taken away the woman’s role of mother and wife in order to unhinge the natural family.

Let’s keep in mind that this approach to the Church’s dogmas confrms an undeniable fact: Bergoglio has adopted the so-called “situation theology,” whose theological pillars are accidental facts or subjects: the world, nature, the female fgure, young people… This theology does not have God’s immutable and eternal truth as its founding center; on the contrary, it starts from the observation of whatever is the current pressing need of these phenomena in order to give answers that are consistent with the expectations of the contemporary world.

Your Excellency, according to historians of recognized merit, the Second Vatican Council represented a rupture of the Church with Tradition; hence the appearance of currents of thought that want to transform it into a simple humanitarian

125 association that embraces the world and its globalist utopia. How do you see this serious problem?

Archbishop Viganó: A Church that presents herself as new with respect to the Church of Christ is simply not the Church of Christ! The Mosaic Religion, that is, the “Church of the ancient law,” willed by God to lead His people until the coming of the Messiah, had its fulfllment in the New Covenant, and was defnitively revoked on Calvary by the Sacrifce of Christ: from His rib was born the Church of the New and Eternal Covenant, which replaces the Synagogue. It seems that also the post-conciliar Church, modernist and Masonic, aspires to transform, to overcome the Church of Christ, replacing it with a “neo- Church,” a deformed and monstrous creature that does not come from God.

The purpose of this neo-Church is not to bring the Chosen People to recognize the Messiah, as it is for the Synagogue; it is not to convert and save all people before the second coming of Christ, as for the Catholic Church, but to constitute itself as the spiritual arm of the New World Order and an advocate of Universal Religion.

In this sense, the [Second Vatican] Council’s revolution frst had to demolish the Church’s heritage, its millenary Tradition, from which she drew her vitality and authority as the Mystical Body of Christ, then free herself from the exponents of the old Hierarchy, and only recently has this revolution begun to offer itself without pretence for what it intends to be.

What you call utopia is actually a dystopia, because it represents the concretization of Freemasonry’s plan and the preparation for the advent of the Antichrist.

I am also convinced that the majority of my brethren, and even more so almost all the priests and faithful, are absolutely unaware of this hellish plan, and that recent events have opened many people’s eyes. Their faith will allow Our Lord to gather the pusillus grex [the “little flock”] around the true Shepherd before the final confrontation.

To restore the ancient splendour of the Church, it will be necessary to question many doctrinal aspects of the Council. What points of Vatican II would you question?

Archbishop Viganó: I believe that there is no lack of eminent personalities who have expressed, better than me, critical viewpoints of the Council. There are those who believe that it would be less complicated and certainly wiser to follow the practice of the Church and the Popes as it applied to the Synod of Pistoia [a diocesan Synod in Pistoia, Italy in 1786, later condemned on 85 points by Pope Pius VI in Rome on August 28, 1794]: there was something good in this Synod as well, but the errors it affirmed were considered sufficient to let it fall into oblivion.

Does the present Pontificate represent the culmination of a process that opened with the Second Vatican Council, desired in the so-called “Pact of the Catacombs” or is it still in an intermediate phase?

[Note: The Pact of the Catacombs is an agreement signed by 42 bishops of the Catholic Church at a meeting following Mass in the Catacombs of Domitilla near Rome on the evening of November 16, 1965, three weeks before the close of the Second Vatican Council. The bishops pledged to live like the poorest of their parishioners and adopt a

126 lifestyle free of attachment to ordinary possessions].

Archbishop Viganó: As is the case with every revolution, the heroes of the first hour often end up falling victim to their own system, as Robespierre did. One who yesterday was judged to be the standard-bearer of the Conciliar spirit today appears almost to be a conservative: the examples are before everyone’s eyes.

And there are already those who, in the intellectual circles of progressivism (such as the one frequented by a certain Massimo Faggioli, haughty in his first name and ungrammatical in his surname), start spreading here and there some doubts about Bergoglio’s real ability to make “courageous choices” — for example, to abolish Celibacy, to admit women to the Priesthood or to legitimize communicatio in sacris [“Communion in sacred things,” that is, the Eucharist] with heretics — almost hoping that he would step aside to elect a Pope even more obedient to those elites who had in the Catacombs and in the St. Gallen Mafia their most unscrupulous and determined followers.

Your Excellency, we Catholics today often feel isolated from the Church and almost abandoned by our Pastors. What can Your Excellency say to the hierarchs and the faithful who, despite the confusion and error that are spreading in the Church, try to persevere in this hard battle to maintain the integrity of our Faith?

Archbishop Viganó: My words would certainly be inadequate. What I limit myself to doing is repeating the words of Our Lord, the eternal Word of the Father: “Behold, I am with you every day, until the consummation of the ages.”

We feel isolated, of course: but didn’t the Apostles and all Christians feel this way as well? Did not Our Lord even feel abandoned in Gethsemane? These are the times of trial, perhaps of the fnal trial; we must drink the bitter cup, and even if it is human to implore the Lord to let it pass from us, we must repeat confdently: “Not my will, but Yours,” remembering His comforting words: “In the world you will have tribulations, but have courage, for I have conquered the world!”

After the trial, no matter how hard and painful, the eternal prize is prepared for us, which no one can take away from us.

The Church will shine again with the glory of her Lord after this terrible and prolonged Easter Triduum.

But if prayer is certainly indispensable, we must also not fail to fght the good fght, making ourselves the witnesses to a courageous militancy under the banner of the Cross of Christ.

Let us not fnd ourselves being pointed out as the handmaiden did with Saint Peter in the high priest’s courtyard: “You too were one of his followers,” only to then deny Christ.

Let us not be intimidated! Let us not allow the gag of tolerance to be placed on those who want to proclaim the Truth!

Let us ask the Blessed Virgin Mary that our tongue may proclaim with courage the

127 Kingdom of God and His Justice.

Let the miracle of Lapa be renewed, when Mary Most Holy gave the word to little Joana, born mute. [Note: In Portugal in the late 900s, nuns feeing the troops of Almançor, the Caliph of Cordoba, hid an image of the Virgin under a boulder, covering a small grotto. Five hundred years later, in 1493, the image was uncovered by a 12-year-old shepherdess named Joana, who found it after squeezing through the narrow crevasse. Joana was born mute, but when her mother tried to cast the image into a fre she recovered her speech. https://www.visitportugal.com/en/node/133125]

May She also give voice to us, Her children, who for too long have been mute.

Our Lady of Fatima, Queen of Victories, Ora pro nobis.

(Translation by Christopher Hart-Moynihan)

“Christ is risen from the dead,

trampling down death by death,

and upon those in the tombs bestowing life!”

March 29, 2020 Interview with the Remnant

Michael J. Matt (MJM): Your Excellency, how do you feel ordinary Catholics are to assess the covid-19 pandemic?

+ Carlo Maria Viganò: The coronavirus pandemic, as with all diseases and death itself, are a consequence of original sin. The sin of Adam, our frst parent, deprived him and us not only of divine grace, but also all the other good things God gave to creation. Then disease and death came into the world as a punishment for disobeying God. The Redemption we were promised in the Protoevangelium (Genesis 3), prophesied in the Old Testament and brought to completion with the Incarnation, Passion, Death and Resurrection of Our Lord, redeemed Adam and his descendants from eternal damnation; but its consequences were left as a mark of the Fall and will only fnally be restored at the Resurrection of the fesh, as we proclaim in the Creed, and which will happen before Judgment Day. This must be remembered, especially at a time when the basic tenets of the Catechism are unknown or denied.

Catholics know that disease - and therefore epidemics, sufering, and losing a loved one - must be accepted in a spirit of faith and humility, even in atonement for our own personal sins. Thanks to the Communion of Saints - thanks to whom the merits of all the baptized are passed on to everyone else in the Church - we may also bear these trials for the sins

128 of others, for the conversion of those who do not believe, and to shorten the time the Holy Souls have to spend in Purgatory. Something as terrible as covid-19 can also be an opportunity for us to grow in Faith and active Charity.

As we have seen, if we only consider the clinical side of the disease - which plainly we must do everything we can to fght - completely removes the transcendental side of our lives, thus leaving them without any spiritual outlook and inevitably locking us into blind and hopeless selfshness.

MJM: Several Bishops and Priests have claimed the God “does not punish” and that considering coronavirus as a scourge is a “pagan idea.” Do you agree?

+ Carlo Maria Viganò: The frst ever punishment, as I was saying, was visited upon our frst parent. However, as we hear in the Exsultet which is sung during the Easter Vigil, O felix culpa, qui talem ac tantum meruit habere Redemptorem! O happy fault, that merited to possess such and so great a Redeemer!

A father who does not punish his children does not love them, but neglects them; a doctor who uncaringly observes the patient getting worse until gangrene does not want his recovery. God is a loving Father because He teaches us what we have to do to be worthy of eternal happiness in Paradise. When we disobey His commandments by sinning, He does not let us die but comes to fnd us and sends us many signs, often very sternly. Then we mend our ways, repent, do penance, and return to our old friendship with Him. You are my friends, if you do the things that I command you. I think the words of Our Lord leave no room for ambiguity.

I should also like to add that the truth about a just God Who rewards the good and punishes the wicked is part of our common inheritance from natural law which Our lord gave everyone throughout history. An irrepressible call to our earthly paradise, which shows even pagans how the Catholic Faith is the necessary completion of everything which sincere and well-disposed hearts suggest to them. I am surprised that nowadays, instead of stressing this truth written deeply into everyone’s hearts, those who seem to feel such great sympathy for the pagans fail to accept something the Church has always considered the best way of attracting them.

MJM: Does Your Excellency feel that there are certain sins which have provoked the wrath of God rather than others?

+ Carlo Maria Viganò: The crimes which stain each of us in the eyes of God are another hammer blow on the very nails used to pierce Our Lord’s sacred and venerable Hands, a lash ripping away the fesh from His Sacred Body, a spit in His beloved Face. If only we realized these things, we would never sin again. And sinners would weep with profound sorrow for the rest of

129 their lives. And yet here is what really happened: during His Passion, our divine Savior took upon Himself not just original sin, but also all the sins all men have committed and will commit. The most glorious thing is that Our Lord went to die on the Cross, when just one drop of his Most Precious Blood would have been enough to redeem us all. Cujus una stilla salvum facere totum mundum quit ab omni scelere, as Saint Thomas teaches us.

As well as the sins committed by individuals, there are also the sins of societies, of nations. Abortion, which is still murdering innocent children even during the pandemic; divorce, euthanasia, the abhorrence of so-called gay “marriages,” the celebration of sodomy and other terrible perversions, pornography, the corruption of children, speculation by the fnancial elite, the profaning of Sundays, and the list goes on…

MJM: May we ask why Your Excellency makes a distinction between the sins of individuals and the sins of nations?

+ Carlo Maria Viganò: Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches that it is the duty of the individual to recognize, worship, and obey the one true God. By the same token societies - which comprise many individuals - cannot fail to recognize God and ensure that their laws allow members of society to reach the spiritual end to which they have been destined. There are nations which do not merely ignore God, but deny Him openly. There are those which require their citizens to accept laws against natural morals and Catholic teaching, such as recognizing the right to abortion, euthanasia, and sodomy. Others corrupt children and violate their innocence. Those who allow people to blaspheme God’s Divine Majesty cannot evade God’s punishment. Public sins require public confession and public atonement, if public forgiveness is sought. Let us not forget that the ecclesiastical community, which is also a society, is not exempt from heavenly punishment when its leaders become responsible for collective ofences.

MJM: Is Your Excellency saying that the Church can have faults?

The Church has always been unfailingly holy, because She is the Mystical Body of Our Lord and Savior, and it would be not only rash but indeed blasphemous even to begin to consider that this divine institution which Providence placed on this earth to provide us all with Grace as the only Ark of Salvation might be even minimally imperfect. The praises we sing of the Mother of God - whom we call precisely Mater Ecclesiae - can be sung of the Church, the Mediatrix of all graces via the Sacraments, the Mother of Our Lord, onto Whose limbs it holds. The Church is the Ark of the Covenant, guardian of the Blessed Sacrament and the Commandments. The Church is the Refuge of Sinners, to whom it grants pardon after a good confession. It is Health of the Sick, upon whom it has always lavished much care. This Queen of Peace promotes harmony by preaching the Gospel. However, it is also terrible as an army set in battle array, because Our Lord has given his sacred ministers the power to crush demons and the authority of the Keys to Heaven. Let us not forget that the Church is not only the Church Militant here on earth, but also the

130 Church Triumphant and the Church Penitent, whose members are all saints. I must also say that although the Church is holy, some of Her members and of Her hierarchy here on earth may be sinners. In these troubled times, there have been many clerics unworthy of the name, as the abuse scandals committed by them and, unfortunately, even Bishops and Cardinals, have shown. The faithlessness of the Sacred Pastors is a scandal for their confreres and for many among the faithful, not only in terms of lust of thirst for power, but also - I might say especially - when they touch the integrity of the Faith, the purity of the Church’s teachings and the holiness of morals. They have even committed acts of unprecedented gravity, such as we saw with the adoration of the pachamama idol in the Vatican itself. Indeed, I think Our Lord has rightly become indignant at the great multitude of scandals committed by those who ought to be setting a good example, because they are Shepherds, to the focks to whom they have been entrusted.

Let us not forget that the example given by so many in the Hierarchy is not merely a scandal for Catholics: it is a scandal for those outside who look at the Church as a lighthouse and a point of reference. Nor is this all: this scourge cannot dispense the Church, in her Hierarchy, from making a proper examination of her conscience for giving in to the spirit of this world. She cannot escape her duty to condemn frmly all those errors she has allowed in after the second Vatican Council, which have brought down upon her all those just punishments. We must mend our ways and return to God.

It pains me to have to say that even now, after we have seen the divine wrath beating down upon the world, we go on ofending the Majesty of God by speaking of mother earth demanding respect, as the Pope said a few days ago in his umpteenth interview. What we must do is ask forgiveness for the sacrilege perpetrated in the Basilica of Saint Peter’s, and reconsecrate it before the Holy Sacrifce of Mass can be said there. We should also call a public procession to show penance, even if only Prelates take part under the Pope’s guidance. They must call down the mercy of God upon themselves and upon His people. This would be a sign of that true humility we are all waiting to see, as reparation for all the ofences committed.

How are we to contain our bewilderment when we hear words like those said in Santa Marta on 26 March? The Pope said,

“The Lord must not fnd us, at the end of our lives, and say to us, ‘You are corrupt. You have left the path I showed you. You have bowed down before idols’.”

Such words as these are truly bewildering, especially if we remember that he himself brought of a terrible sacrilege before the eyes and ears of the whole world, before the very Altar of the Confession of Saint Peter, a real profanation, an act of pure apostasy, with those flthy and satanic images of pachamama.

MJM: On the Feast of the Annunciation of Our Lady, the Bishops of Portugal and of Spain dedicated their countries to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The Bishops of Ireland and of England and Wales did the same. In many Dioceses and towns elsewhere, the Bishops and the local authorities have placed

131 their communities under the protection of Mary Most Holy. How does Your Excellency consider these events?

+ Carlo Maria Viganò: These are actions which fll my heart with hope. Although they are not enough to atone for our faults they have been completely ignored by those at the top of the Church, even though the simple faithful have long cried out for solemn acts such as these by their Shepherds. Our Lady of Fatima asked the Pope and all Bishops to consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart, and announced wars and disasters until this came about. Her calls have gone unheard. The Hierarchy must now reform and obey the Mother of God! It is shameful and scandalous that no Bishop in Italy has joined in with this great initiative!

MJM: How do you judge the suspension of the Sacraments which we have seen in almost all the world?

+ Carlo Maria Viganò: This is a terrible sufering, perhaps even the worst the faithful have ever seen. It is unbelievable to think such a thing has been denied to the dying.

At this juncture, it seems most that the Hierarchy, with very few exceptions, had no scruple in closing the churches and in preventing the participation of the faithful in the holy Sacrifce of the Mass. They have behaved like cold bureaucrats, like executors of the will of the Prince, and most of the faithful have taken their actions as a sign of their lack of Faith. Who can blame them?

I almost wonder - and it is a terrible thing to think - whether the closure of churches and the suspension of all Celebrations might not be another punishment by God, in addition to the pandemic. That they might know that by what things a man sinneth, by the same also he is tormented. (Wisdom 11, 17) Ofended though He is by the slovenliness and lack of respect shown by his priests, outraged by the profanation of the Blessed Sacrament which occurs every day when they give Communion in the hand, and tired of silly songs or heretical homilies, He is still - from His place of silence within the Tabernacle - satisfed by the austere composed praise ofered by the many Priests who are still saying the Mass of all time. The Mass which goes back to the time of the Apostles. And which has always been the beating heart of the Church down through the centuries. Let us remember this most solemn warning: God is not mocked.

Clearly I understand and share the basic worries about safety and protection which the authorities require for public health. However, just as they have the right to pass measures for things afecting our bodies, so the Church authorities have the right and the duty to worry about the health of our souls. They cannot deny the faithful the spiritual sustenance they receive from the Eucharist, not to mention the Sacrament of Confession, Mass, and Viaticum.

When so many shops and restaurants were still open, the various Bishops’ Conferences had already suspended all sacred functions, even when the civil authorities had not asked them to do so. This is further proof that the Hierarchy is in a dreadful state and shows that Bishops are all too willing to sacrifce the well-being of souls to pacify the power of the

132 state or the dictatorship of ideas.

MJM: Your Excellency mentioned restaurants. What do you say about the meals for the poor which were ofered in the last few months in places of worship?

+ Carlo Maria Viganò: For Catholics, helping those in need is an act of charity. It reminds us that God is love. We have to love God above all things with our whole hearts, and love our neighbor for love of Him. Thus, in accordance with the beatitudes, we can see Our Lord in the poor, in the sick, in prisoners, and in orphans. From the very start, the Church has always been a luminous example in this feld. Even the pagans admired us for it. History shows us the many impressive works of aid which have been started thanks to the generosity of the faithful, even in times of great hostility by states. Rulers have often taken over these works under orders from freemasons, who clearly despised the great works of so many good Catholics. Caring for the poor and those on the edges of society is not something that started with Bergoglio or with various woke associations.

We must realize that when the new regime helps the poor, it does so with absolutely no reference whatever to the supernatural. All we are seeing is works of corporal mercy, whereas works of spiritual mercy have been utterly wiped out. Nor is this all: the current Papacy has completely eliminated any form of apostolate, and says the Church must not perform any missionary activity, which it calls proselytism. We can only provide food, hospitality, and health care, but nobody provides food, hospitality, or care for the souls of those who so desperately need it. The modern Church has been turned into a sort of NGO. True Charity is nothing to do with its masonic imitation, however much they try to hide it with an extremely vague sense of spirituality: it is the exact opposite, because the various bodies we see at work today deny that there is only one true Church, whose message of salvation must be preached to those outside it. This is not all: the Church has drifted so far after the Council in questions of religious freedom and ecumenism that many charitable bodies now confrm the people entrusted to their care in their paganism or atheism. they even ofer them places of worship where they can go and pray. We have even seen terrible examples of Masses where, at the explicit request of the Celebrant, instead of the Holy Gospel a reading is taken from the Koran or, as happened more recently, idolatry has been practiced in Catholic churches.

I think the decision to turn churches into refectories or dormitories for the needy is proof of this basic hypocrisy which, as we have seen with ecumenism, takes an apparently good thing (such as feeding the hungry or sheltering the homeless) - and exploits it to help the grand masonic plan for one world religion with no dogmas, no ceremonies, no God. Using churches as hostels, in the presence of smug Prelates who drop by to serve pizzas or pork chops with an apron over their ecclesiastical dress means profaning them. Especially when those smiling to the photographers absolutely never open the doors of their own mansions to those they want to take advantage of for political purposes. Let me go back to what I was saying and repeat that all this sacrilege is the underlying cause of the current pandemic.

All too often they use the poverty and homelessness of these poor people so they can

133 appear on the front pages of the newspapers. This we saw only too often with the landings of all those immigrants. The only purpose was to set up a new industry for reception, behind which are hidden not only mean economic interests but also their complicity with those who seek to destroy a Christian Europe starting with Italy. MJM: In other cases, such as the city of Cerveteri near Rome, the forces of law and order stopped a Priest who was saying Mass. How have the Church authorities reacted to this sort of thing?

Cerveteri may simply have been an excess of zeal by two local policemen, especially if they have to work under all the extra stress that has arisen since to coronavirus outbreak. It must also be clear, though, especially in a country like Italy which signed a Concordat with the Church in 1929, that the ecclesiastical authorities have sole rights over places of worship. The Holy See and the local Ordinary really ought to have protested over such a violation of the Lateran Treaty, which was confrmed again in 1984 and which is still in force. Yet again, the authority of Bishops, given directly to them by God, melts away like snow and shows how cowardly they all are. This might lead to even worse abuses in the future if it is not corrected now. Let me take this opportunity to ask for a forthright condemnation of this unacceptable meddling by government forces in afairs which are the direct responsibility of the Church Authorities.

MJM: Pope Francis invited all Christians, Catholics and non-Catholics, to come together on 25 March to ask God to put an end to this pandemic, and let it be understood that members of other religions could pray too.

The religious relativism which was brought in with Vatican II led many people to believe that the Catholic Faith was no longer the only means to salvation, or that the Blessed Trinity was the Only True God.

In his Abu Dhabi declaration, Pope Francis said that God wants all religions. Not only is this a blatant heresy, it is also a very serious apostasy and a terrible blasphemy. Saying that God wants to be worshipped as something other than how He revealed Himself means that the Incarnation, Passion, Death and Resurrection of our Savior are completely meaningless. It means that the reason for founding the Church, the reason for which millions of holy Martyrs gave their lives, for which the Sacraments were instituted, along with the Priesthood and the Papacy itself, are all meaningless.

Unfortunately, just when we should be making atonement for our ofences against the divine Majesty of God, here is someone who asks us to pray to Him along with those who deny the divine Maternity of His Mother, on Her Feast day.

Would this not be the best way to put an end to the current pestilence?

MJM: It is also true that the Apostolic Penitentiary has granted special Indulgences to those struck by this terrible afiction and for those who assist them materially and spiritually.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò:

134 Firstly let me stress that Indulgences can never take the place of the Sacraments. We must frmly resist the villainous decisions taken by several Shepherds, who have forbidden the Priests from hearing Confessions or baptizing children. These measures - along with the ban on public Masses and the suspension of Holy Communion - go against the law of God, and are proof that behind it all is Satan. Only the Evil Serpent can explain these measures which will bring about the spiritual loss of so many souls. It would be like ordering doctors not to treat patients in danger of death.

The example of the Bishops in Poland should be followed by the universal Church: they ordered more Masses to be said so that more faithful could go safely to hear Mass. This would happen if the Hierarchy actually cared about the eternal salvation of Catholics. Do not forget that in Poland, the efects of the pandemic are much lower than in other countries.

The Church’s teaching on Indulgences has not been swept away by the revolutionaries, and this is a good thing. However, whereas the Bishop of Rome has the power to draw upon the infnite riches of Grace, it is also true that Indulgences cannot be trivialized or considered as some sort of end-of-season sales bonus. The faithful felt the same things towards the end of the Jubilee of Mercy, when a Plenary indulgence was granted under such strange conditions that those earning the Indulgence hardly realized what was happening.

There is also a problem with the Sacrament of Penance and Eucharistic Communion which are necessary for an indulgence to take efect, which the Apostolic Penitentiary has postponed until some unspecifed “as soon as possible.”

MJM: Does Your Excellency feel that the general dispensations for General Absolution instead of absolving individuals may apply in the current epidemic?

+ Carlo Maria Viganò: An imminent danger of death justifes certain solutions which the Church, in Her zeal for the eternal salvation of souls, has always generously allowed. Such is the case with General Absolution for soldiers about to go into battle, or for people on board a sinking ship. If an emergency afecting an intensive care ward does mean that a Priest can only enter under extremely strict conditions, and he cannot hear the individual confessions of the dying, I think such a solution may be the best.

However, if a precedent is set whereby General Absolution is extended to all cases, even when penitents are not in danger of immediate death, we must be extremely careful to ensure that what the Church allows in extreme cases does not become the norm. Let me remind people that watching Mass on the internet or on television does not absolve the precept of going to Sunday Mass. It can be a good way to sanctify the Lord’s Day when it is absolutely impossible to go to church; but we must always remember that living the Sacraments cannot be replaced by virtualizing the Sacraments. At a more banal level, we cannot feed our bodies by looking at a photograph of a loaf of bread.

MJM:

135 What message would Your Excellency like to give those in charge of defending and guiding Christ’s fock?

+ Carlo Maria Viganò: The Pope, the Hierarchy, and all Bishops, Priests and Religious must immediately and absolutely convert. This is something the laity are calling for, as they sufer because they have no frm and faithful guides. We cannot allow the fock which Our Divine Lord has entrusted to our care be scattered by faithless mercenaries. We must convert and go completely over to being on God’s side. We cannot reach any compromises whatsoever with the world.

Bishops must recover an awareness of their own Apostolic Authority, which is personal, which cannot be delegated to intermediate subjects such as Episcopal Conferences or Synods, which have distorted the exercise of the apostolic ministry, causing serious damage to the divine constitution of the Church.

The time has come to put an end to synodal paths. To an absurd sense of inferiority and fattering when dealing with the world. To that hypocritical use of the word dialoguing instead of fearlessly preaching the Gospel. We must stop teaching false doctrines and stop being afraid of preaching about purity and holiness. And stop being silent in front of the arrogance of evil. Stop covering up terrible scandals. Stop lying, tricking, and taking revenge.

Catholic life must be a battle right to the end, not a happy-go-lucky walk towards the abyss. All of us, having received Holy Orders. will be asked by Our Lord to give account of the souls we have saved, and those we have lost by not reprimanding and rescuing them. Let us go back to the One true Faith. To living a life of holiness. To the only Cult pleasing to God.

Conversion and repentance, as Our Blessed Lady, Mother of the Church, asks of us. Let us all ask Her, Tabernacle of the Most High, to give Priests and Bishops the heroic impetus they need to save the Church and to bring about the victory of Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Original Source: The Remnant Newspaper

______

February 29, 2020 Letter in Defense of Chinese Cardinal Zen

Dearest Eminence, This is Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America.

136 I have followed deeply — sharing in prayer your sufering — your many heartfelt appeals to Pope Bergoglio concerning the tragic situation of the Martyr Church in China, which he himself has culpably aggravated through the treacherous and wicked secret Agreement signed by Holy See with the Chinese Communist Government.

Your heartfelt appeals, dear Brother in Christ, have systematically been unheeded and even mocked in a hypocritical and perverse way. As for Cardinal Parolin, he has acted as a mere reckless executor of an evil order from above.

I read this morning the ignominious and shameful letter that Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re has addressed to all the cardinals against you. I am deeply saddened and indignant, and I wish to express to you all my afection, prayer and fraternal solidarity in the episcopate.

You are a courageous Confessor of the Faith and you have all my esteem and veneration! Unfortunately, in the Vatican lying has been set into the system, truth has been totally overturned, and the most perverse deception is shamelessly practiced even by the most unsuspected fgures, who have now given themselves over to acting as accomplices of the Adversary. They have even gone so far as to say that “Pope Benedict XVI had approved the draft Agreement” signed in 2018, when instead we all know of his strenuous resistance and repeated disapproval of the conditions imposed by a persecutory and bloody regime. The Vatican has done everything and more to deliver the Chinese Martyr Church into the hands of the Enemy: it did so by signing the Secret Pact; it did so by legitimizing excommunicated “bishops” who are agents of the regime; it did so by the deposition of legitimate bishops; it did so by forcing faithful priests to register with a church that has succumbed to the Communist dictatorship; it does so on a daily basis by keeping silent about the persecutory fury that has gained unprecedented strength, precisely since the signing of that unfortunate Agreement. It is now doing so with this ignoble letter to all the cardinals, which is aimed at accusing you, denigrating you, and isolating you. Our Lord assures us that nothing and no one will ever be able to snatch from His hands those who resist the infernal enemy and his acolytes, conquering them “by the Blood of the Lamb” and by the testimony of their martyrdom (cf. Rev. 12:11).

Your example, dear Cardinal, and the very high price you are paying to defend the Cause of God and His Church, gives us a salutary jolt, it rips us from the inertia and habituation with which we are passively witnessing the surrender of the Catholic Church, at its highest levels and in its hierarchy, to heresy and apostasy, by following the Prince of this world, who is a liar and murderer from the beginning (cf. Jn 8:44).

Parce, Domine, parce populo tuo, quem redemisti, Christe, sanguine tuo, ne in aeternum irascaris nobis. (“Spare, Lord, spare your people: Be not angry with us forever”)

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Original Source: Inside the Vatican

______

137 January 31, 2020 Letter: "The Faithful Have a Right to Know"

We have just been through one of the most disgraceful episodes in which we have seen the prince of lies at work to discredit the book of Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Robert Sarah by covering them with vile insults and vulgar insinuations, and the Pope’s jailer, as a Judas, now also acting as a hitman. And once again we fnd ourselves dealing with another masterpiece of deception: the confrmation by the Pope of the elections of the new Dean and Vice-Dean of the College of Cardinals by the Cardinal-Bishops. This has gone almost unnoticed and yet conceals a devious strategy. It should be borne in mind, in fact, that in June 2018 Pope Francis increased the number of Cardinal-Bishops, which had remained unchanged for centuries, promoting four new ones in one fell swoop. In this way, he secured a majority in favor of him, as he has always done with the creation of new members of the College of Cardinals.

To Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, appointed Dean of the College at the age of 86 and therefore excluded from the next conclave, I wish an even longer life than that of his father. But his appointment is a cover for that other more efective appointment — of Cardinal Sandri — which has been prepared ad hoc to pilot the next conclave Secundum Franciscum, that is, according to an updated and augmented edition of the St. Gallen Mafa.

I have a long-standing friendship with Cardinal Sandri that dates back to the time shared in the Pontifcal Ecclesiastical Academy, then during eleven years in the same ofce as secretaries to three Substitutes of the Secretariat of State, and seven years of collaboration once he was appointed Substitute for General Afairs in the Secretariat of State, having returned after just six months from his mission as Nuncio to Mexico. “Amicus Plato sed magis amica veritas.” [Plato is my friend, but truth is a better friend]. This maxim, attributed to Aristotle, then taken up by Plato towards Socrates and later by Cicero, is explained by St. Thomas Aquinas in Sententia libri Ethicorum, Liber 1, Lectio 6, n. 4-5 as follows:

“Quod autem oporteat veritatem praeferre amicis, ostendit hac ratione. Quia ei qui est magis amicus, magis est deferendum. Cum autem amicitiam habeamus ad ambo, scilicet ad veritatem et ad hominem, magis debemus veritatem amare quam hominem, quia hominem praecipue debemus amare propter veritatem et propter virtutem… Veritas autem est amicus superexcellens cui debetur reverentia honoris; est etiam veritas quiddam divinum, in Deo enim primo et principaliter invenitur. Et ideo concludit, quod sanctum est praehonorare veritatem hominibus amicis.”

In English:

That truth should be preferred to friends he proves in this way. He is the greater friend for whom we ought to have greater consideration. Although we should have friendship for both truth and our fellow man, we ought rather to love truth because we should love our fellow man especially on account of truth and virtue… Now truth is a most excellent friend of the sort to whom the homage of honor is due.

138 Besides truth is a divine thing, for it is found frst and chiefy in God. He concludes, therefore, that it is virtuous to honor truth above friends.

Which is why what I am about to write concerning Cardinal Leonardo Sandri is inspired solely by the friendship that has bound me to him for almost ffty years, for the good of his soul, for the love of the Truth who is Christ Himself, and for the Church, His Bride, whom we served together.

In the frst audience that Francis granted me after the one on June 23, 2013, that I have already mentioned (in my frst testimony), in which he asked me about Cardinal McCarrick, he asked me a similar question:

“What is Cardinal Sandri like?”

Caught by surprise by the question about a dear friend of mine, and feeling put on the spot, I did not answer. Then Francis, joining his hands in a characteristically Italian gesture, waved them back and forth — as if to say that Sandri “knows how to get by” — and he looked me in the eyes seeking my consent to his suggestion. So I told him in confdence:

“Holy Father, I don’t know if you are aware that Nuncio Justo Mullor, President of the Pontifcal Ecclesiastical Academy, was removed from the Apostolic Nunciature in Mexico because he opposed the directives coming from the Secretariat of State to cover up the very serious accusations against Marcial Maciel.”

This is what I told the Pope, so that he would take it into account and eventually remedy the injustice that Archbishop Mullor had sufered for not compromising himself, for remaining faithful to the truth, and for love of the Church. I reafrm this truth here, so as to honor this faithful servant of the Holy See, on whose tomb, in the cathedral of Almeria, Spain, I celebrated a Holy Mass of sufrage.

I already wrote in my frst testimony that the person chiefy responsible for covering up the misdeeds committed by Maciel was then-Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano, whose recent acceptance to resign as Dean of the College of Cardinals was linked to his involvement in the Maciel afair. He, in addition to protecting Maciel, is certainly no stranger to McCarrick’s promotions…

Meanwhile, Cardinal Francis Arinze deserves to be recognized for having opposed, within the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Sodano’s attempt to cover up the Maciel case.

Unfortunately for him, Sandri also allowed himself to be involved by Sodano in this operation to cover up Maciel’s horrible misdeeds. To replace Archbishop Mullor in Mexico City, it was necessary to appoint a person of unfailing loyalty to Sodano. Sandri had already given proof of this as Assessor for the section of General Afairs in the Secretariat of State. Serving at the time as Nuncio in Venezuela for just a little over two years, he was transferred to Mexico.

139 I was a direct witness to these shady maneuvers (which those in charge would describe as normal personnel transfers) through a conversation they had on January 25, 2000, the feast of the Conversion of St Paul, while we were on our way to the Basilica that bears his name, for the closing of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. The chain linking the dates of these transfers is very signifcant: on January 19, 2000, Archbishop Giorgio Zur, who had been President of the Pontifcal Ecclesiastical Academy (PAE) for only one year, was transferred to Moscow; on February 11, 2000, Archbishop Justo Mullor, who at this point had been in Mexico for just two and a half years, was appointed President of the PAE; on March 1, 2000, Archbishop Sandri was transferred to Mexico after spending only two and a half years in Venezuela. Just six months later, on September 16, 2000, Sandri was promoted to Substitute of the Secretariat of State, i.e., Sodano’s right-hand man. The Legionaries of Christ did not fail to show their gratitude to Sandri. On the occasion of a lunch held in the atrium of the Paul VI Hall to honor the cardinals, including Sandri, who were created at the November 24, 2007 consistory, I was bewildered when Sandri told me in advance what he was about to tell Pope Benedict as he made his entrance:

“Holy Father, you will excuse me if I don’t stay for lunch, but I am expected by fve hundred of my guests at the Legionaries of Christ.”

Francis, after having repeatedly and obsessively referred to an unspecifed “clericalism” as the cause of sexual abuse, in order to avoid denouncing the scourge of homosexuality, is now faunting the most unscrupulous clericalism (an accusation he levels at others): he promotes Sandri to Cardinal-Priest in May 2018 and a month later to Cardinal-Bishop, so that he might confrm him as Vice-Dean of the College of Cardinals, a candidate prepared by Francis to preside at the next Conclave.

The faithful have a right to know these sordid intrigues of a corrupt court. In the Heart of the Church we seem to glimpse the approaching shadow of Satan’s synagogue (Rev 2:9). + Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Original Source: Inside the Vatican

Translation by Diane Montagna of LifeSiteNews

______

December 19, 2019 Letter in Defense of Mary against Francis

“Is there in the heart of the Virgin Mary anything other than the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ? We too want to have only one name in our hearts: that of Jesus, like the Most Blessed Virgin.”

The tragic story of this failed pontifcate advances with a pressing succession of twists and turns. Not a day passes: from the most exalted throne the Supreme Pontif proceeds to dismantle the See of Peter, using and abusing its supreme authority, not to confess but

140 to deny; not to confrm but to mislead; not to unite but to divide; not to build but to demolish.

Material heresies, formal heresies, idolatry, superfciality of every kind: the Supreme Pontif Bergoglio never ceases stubbornly to humiliate the highest authority of the Church, “demythologizing” the papacy — as perhaps his illustrious comrade Karl Rahner would say. His action seeks to violate the Sacred Deposit of Faith and to disfgure the Catholic Face of the Bride of Christ by word and action, through duplicity and lies, through those theatrical gestures of his that faunt spontaneity but are meticulously conceived and planned, and through which he exalts himself in a continuous narcissistic self-celebration, while the fgure of the Roman Pontif is humiliated and the Sweet Christ on earth is obscured.

His action makes use of magisterial improvisation, of that of the cuf and fuid magisterium that is as insidious as quicksand, not only fying at high altitude at the mercy of journalists from all over the world, in those ethereal spaces that can highlight a pathological delirium of illusory omnipotence, but also at the most solemn religious ceremony that ought to incite holy trembling and reverent respect.

On the occasion of the liturgical memorial of the Virgin of Guadalupe, Pope Bergoglio once again gave vent to his evident Marian intolerance, recalling that of the Serpent in the account of the Fall, in that Proto-Gospel which prophesizes the radical enmity placed by God between the Woman and the Serpent, and the declared hostility of the latter, who until the consummation of time will seek to undermine the Woman’s heel and to triumph over her and her posterity. The Pontif’s intolerance is a manifest aggression against the prerogatives and sublime attributes that make the Immaculate Ever-Virgin Mother of God the feminine complement to the mystery of the Incarnate Word, intimately associated with Him in the Economy of Redemption.

After having downgraded her to the “next door neighbor” or a runaway migrant, or a simple lay woman with the defects and crises of any woman marked by sin, or a disciple who obviously has nothing to teach us; after having trivialized and desacralized her, like those feminists who are gaining ground in Germany with their “Mary 2.0” movement which seeks to modernize Our Lady and make her a simulacrum in their image and likeness, Pope Bergoglio has further impugned the August Queen and Immaculate Mother of God, who “became mestiza with humanity... and made God mestizo.” With a couple of jokes, he struck at the heart of the Marian dogma and the Christological dogma connected to it.

The Marian dogmas are the seal placed on the Catholic truths of our faith, defned at the Councils of Nicaea, Ephesus and Chalcedon; they are the unbreakable bulwark against Christological heresies and against the furious unleashing of the Gates of Hell. Those who “mestizo” and profane them show that they are on the side of the Enemy. To attack Mary is to venture against Christ himself; to attack the Mother is to rise up against her Son and to rebel against the very mystery of the Most Holy Trinity. The Immaculate Theotokos, “terrible as an army with banners” (Canticle 6:10) — acies ordinanata — will do battle to save the Church and destroy the Enemy’s unfettered army that has declared war on her, and with him all the demonic pachamamas will defnitively return to hell.

141 Pope Bergoglio no longer seems to contain his impatience with the Immaculate, nor can he conceal it under that seeming and ostentatious devotion which is always in the spotlight of the cameras, while deserts the solemn celebration of the Assumption and the recitation of the Rosary with the faithful, who flled the courtyard of St. Damascene and the upper loggia of St. Peter’s Basilica under St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. Papa Bergoglio uses the pachamama to rout the Guadalupana. The enthronement of that Amazonian idol, even at the altar of the confession in St. Peter’s Basilica, was nothing less than a declaration of war on the Lady and Patroness of all the Americas, who with her apparition to Juan Diego destroyed the demonic idols and won the indigenous peoples for Christ and the adoration of the “Most True and Only God,” through her maternal mediation. And this is not a legend!

A few weeks after the conclusion of the synodal event, which marked the investiture of pachamama in the heart of Catholicity, we learned that the conciliar disaster of the Novus Ordo Missae is undergoing further modernization, including the introduction of “Dew” in the Eucharistic Canon instead of the mention of the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity.

This is a further step in the direction of regression towards the naturalization and immanentization of Catholic worship, towards a pantheistic and idolatrous Novissimus Ordo. The “Dew,” an entity present in the “theological place” of the Amazonian tropics — as we learned from the synodal fathers — becomes the new immanent principle of fertilization of the Earth, which “transubstantiates” it into a pantheistically connected Whole to which men are assimilated and subjugated, to the glory of Pachamama. And here we are plunged back into the darkness of a new globalist and eco-tribal paganism, with its demons and perversions. From this latest liturgical upheaval, divine Revelation decays from fullness to archaism; from the hypostatic identity of the Holy Spirit we slide towards the symbolic and metaphorical evanescence proper to dew which masonic gnosis has long made its own.

But let us return for a moment to the idolatrous statues of rare ugliness, and to Pope Bergoglio’s declaration the day after their removal from the church in Traspontina and their drowning in the Tiber. Once again, the Pope’s words have the scent of a colossal lie: he made us believe that the statuettes were promptly exhumed from the flthy waters thanks to the intervention of the Carabinieri [Italian police]. One wonders why a crew from Vatican News coordinated by Tornielli, and Spadaro of Civiltà Cattolica, with reporters and cameramen from the court press, did not come to flm the prowess of the divers and capture the rescue of the pachamamas. It is also unlikely that such a spectacular feat did not capture the attention of a few passers-by, equipped with a mobile phone to flm and then launch the scoop on social media. We are tempted to pose the question to the person who made that statement. Certainly, this time too, he would answer us with his eloquent silence.

For more than six years now we have been poisoned by a false magisterium, a sort of extreme synthesis of all the conciliar misconceptions and post-conciliar errors that have been relentlessly propagated, without most of us noticing. Yes, because the Second Vatican Council opened not only Pandora’s Box but also Overton’s Window, and so

142 gradually that we did not realize the upheavals that had been carried out, the real nature of the reforms and their dramatic consequences, nor did we suspect who was really at the helm of that gigantic subversive operation, which the modernist Cardinal Suenens called “the 1789 of the Catholic Church.”

Thus, over these last decades, the Mystical Body has been slowly drained of its lifeblood through unstoppable bleeding: the Sacred Deposit of Faith has gradually been squandered, dogmas denatured, worship secularized and gradually profaned, morality sabotaged, the priesthood vilifed, the Eucharistic Sacrifce protestantized and transformed into a convivial Banquet...

Now the Church is lifeless, covered with metastases and devastated. The people of God are groping, illiterate and robbed of their Faith, in the darkness of chaos and division. In these last decades, the enemies of God have progressively made scorched earth of two thousand years of Tradition. With unprecedented acceleration, thanks to the subversive drive of this pontifcate, supported by the powerful Jesuit apparatus, a deadly coup de grace [death blow] is being delivered to the Church.

With Pope Bergoglio — as with all modernists — it is impossible to seek clarity, since the distinctive mark of the modernist heresy is dissimulation. Masters of error and experts in the art of deception,

“they strive to make what is ambiguous universally accepted, presenting it from its harmless side which will serve as a passport to introduce the toxic side that was initially kept hidden.” (Fr. Matteo Liberatore SJ).

And so the lie, obstinately and obsessively repeated, ends up becoming “true” and accepted by the majority.

Also typically modernist is the tactic of afrming what you want to destroy, using vague and imprecise terms, and promoting error without ever formulating it clearly. This is exactly what Pope Bergoglio does, with his dissolving amorphism of the Mysteries of the Faith, with his doctrinal approximation through which he “mestizos” and demolishes the most sacred dogmas, as he did with the Marian dogmas of the Ever-Virgin Mother of God.

The result of this abuse is what we now have before our eyes: a Catholic Church that is no longer Catholic; a container emptied of its authentic content and flled with borrowed goods.

The advent of the Antichrist is inevitable; it is part of the epilogue of the History of Salvation. But we know that it is the prerequisite for the universal triumph of Christ and his glorious Bride. Those of us who have not let ourselves be deceived by these enemies of the Church enfeofed in the ecclesial Body, must unite and together face of against the Evil One, who is long defeated yet still able to harm and cause the eternal perdition of multitudes of souls, but whose head the Blessed Virgin, our Leader, will defnitively crush. Now it is our turn. Without equivocation, without letting ourselves be driven out of this Church whose legitimate children we are and in which we have the sacred right to feel at

143 home, without the hateful horde of Christ’s enemies making us feel marginalized, schismatic and excommunicated.

Now it is our turn! The triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary — Coredemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces — passes through her “little ones,” who are certainly frail and sinners but are absolutely opposed to the members enlisted in the Enemy’s army. “Little ones” consecrated without any limit whatsoever to the Immaculate, in order to be her heel, the most humiliated and despised part, the most hated by hell, but which together with Her will crush the head of the infernal Monster.

Saint Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort asked: “But when will this triumph take place? God knows.” Our task is to be vigilant and pray as St. Catherine of Siena ardently recommended:

“Oimè! That I die and cannot die. Sleep no longer in negligence; use what you can in the present time. Comfort yourselves in Christ Jesus, sweet love. Drown yourselves in the Blood of Christ crucifed, place yourselves on the cross with Christ crucifed, hide yourselves in the wounds of Christ crucifed, bathe yourselves in the blood of Christ crucifed” (Letter 16).

The Church is shrouded in the darkness of modernism, but the victory belongs to Our Lord and His Bride. We desire to continue to profess the perennial faith of the Church in the face of the roaring evil that besieges her. We desire to keep vigil with her and with Jesus, in this new Gethsemane of the end times; to pray and do penance in reparation for the many ofenses caused to them.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Original Source: LifeSiteNews Translation by Diane Montagna

November 20, 2019 Article Against Neo-Religious Synchretism

“To the Venerable Brothers … who have peace and communion with the Apostolic See in the defense of the Truth revealed by Jesus Christ, health and Apostolic Blessing. Perhaps in the past it never happened that the heart of human creatures was taken as today by such a lively desire for fraternity… One easily understands… how many are those who yearn to see more and more united among themselves the various nations, led to this by this universal feeling of brotherhood. ”

144 This is how the Supreme Pontif Pius XI expressed himself at the beginning of his encyclical Mortalium animos in 1928, signed precisely on the day of the Epiphany, when the Church recalls the three wise Magi from the East, leaders of an ceaseless processional caravan guided by a shining star that appeared in the frmament, when on earth the Son of God came in the fesh, the One Savior, center of the cosmos and of History.

Ninety-one years later, last Friday, November 15, 2019 — as reported by Vatican News — Pope Bergoglio received the Great Imam Ahmed Al-Tayeb, accompanied by various personalities and representatives of the University of Al-Azhar and the Superior Committee, all animated by the desire to give form and substance to the contents of the Document on Human Brotherhood for World Peace and the Common Cohabitation, agreed upon last August in the wake of the historic Emirate Declaration, signed by the pontif and by the Imam during the Year of Brotherhood.

About the document mentioned above, His Excellency Mohamed Khalifa Al Mubarak, as the representative of the United Arab Emirates, had previously stated (Vatican News, September 21, 2019) that

“in a world where there are so many things that divide, the Emirates are committed to unite. Like a beacon of light, they want to bring light into a dark world, bringing to light this Document, the most important signed in recent times”; as if to say that “the Light from the East” which came to visit us from on high like the sun rising (Lk 1:7-8) is now eclipsed by a new “Bright Lighthouse.”

The talks of the Vatican meeting were cordial, with words and expressive gestures of a by now consolidated friendship: we recall that this is the sixth meeting between the Pope and the Great Imam. Thus the Latin American warmth has prevailed over the long and rigid “frost” that formerly marked the relations between the Apostolic See and the highest leadership of Sunni Islam. The meeting also ofered the opportunity to present the Pope with a singular project of which it is possible to get a certain idea through foor plans and 3D reconstructions.

Sir David Adjaye Obe is the creator of this architectural project, which will be built in the opulent and extravagant Abu Dhabi. It will be called the “House of the Abrahamitic Family,” a sort of New Tent of Universal Brotherhood evoking that other Tent of Hospitality in which the Ancient Patriarch (Abraham) hosted three mysterious Angels (cf Genesis 18), prefguration of the Trinitarian God fully revealed to the legitimate Abrahamic posterity, through faith in Jesus Christ.

“Abrahamic Family House” is therefore the name of this structure that will house a synagogue, a mosque and a church, naturally dedicated to the Poverello (St. Francis of Assisi).

Sir David’s project envisages that the three diferent places of worship should be joined together by a single foundation and placed within a garden, evocative of a New Eden, a

145 re-evocation in a gnostic and Masonic key of the paradise of the First Creation. As explained to Pope Bergoglio, this

“structure… will serve as a place of individual worship, but also for dialogue and interreligious exchange.”

In fact, a fourth building is also planned, home to the Center for Studies and Research on Human Brotherhood, whose objective, which can be seen from the Abu Dhabi document, will be to “make the three religions known.” In this same venue will also take place ceremonies to hand out a Human Brotherhood Prize.

The building of the House of the Abramitic Family seems to be a Babelic enterprise, concocted by the enemies of God, of the Catholic Church and of the only true religion capable of saving man and the whole creation from destruction, both now and in eternity, and defnitively. The foundations of this “House,” destined to give way and collapse, arise where, by the hands of the builders themselves, the One Cornerstone is about to be incredibly removed: Jesus Christ, Savior and Lord, on whom is built the House of God. “Therefore,” warns the Apostle Paul, “let everyone be careful how he builds. Indeed, no one can lay a foundation other than the one already found there, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 3:10).

In the garden of Abu Dhabi the temple of the world syncretistic Neo-Religion is about to rise with its anti-Christian dogmas. Not even the most hopeful of the Freemasons would have imagined so much!

Pope Bergoglio thus proceeds to further implement the apostasy of Abu Dhabi, the fruit of pantheistic and agnostic neo-modernism that tyrannizes the Roman Church, germinated by the conciliar document Nostra Aetate. We are compelled to recognize it: the poisoned fruits of the “Conciliar springtime” are before the eyes of anyone who does not allow himself to be blinded by the dominant Lie.

Pius XI had alerted and warned us. But the teachings that preceded Vatican II have been thrown to the winds, as intolerant and obsolete. The comparison between the pre- conciliar Magisterium and the new teachings of Nostra aetate and Dignitatis humanae — to mention only those — manifest a terrible discontinuity, which must be acknowledged and which must be amended as soon as possible. Adjuvante Deo (“with God’s help”).

Let us listen to the words of the Supreme Pontif Pius XI, when the Popes used to speak the language of Truth, chiseled with fre in diamond. “For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infdels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in diferent ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in

146 distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.” (Mortalium Animos, 2)

The mystical Bride of Christ over the centuries has never been contaminated nor will she ever be contaminated, according to Cyprian’s words:

“The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.” (Mortalium animos, 10)

..

“Today more than ever … the Church needs strong and consistent doctrines. In the midst of dissolution… the compromises become more and more sterile, and each of them takes away a piece of the truth… Show yourself then… who in the end you are, convinced Catholics…! There is a grace linked to the full and complete confession of faith. This confession, the Apostle tells us, is the salvation of those who make it, and experience shows that it is also the salvation of those who understand it.” (Dom Prosper-Louis-Pascal Guéranger, The Christian Meaning of History ).

The Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI recently broke his silence by making public his sorrowful plea for the Church in this hour so troubled in its history:

“Even today our faith is threatened by reductive changes to which worldly fashions would like to subject it to take away its greatness. Lord, help us in this time of ours to be and to remain true Catholics — to live and die in the greatness of Your truth and in Your divinity. Give us always courageous bishops who may guide us to unity in faith and with the saints of all times and may show us how to act adequately in the service of reconciliation, to which our episcopate is called in a special way. Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us!”

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Original Source: Inside the Vatican

July 3, 2019 Washington Post Interview Unpublished Remarks

147 I.b. Do you see any signs that the Vatican, under Pope Francis, is taking proper steps to address the serious issues of abuse? If not, what is missing?

The signs I see are truly ominous. Not only is Pope Francis doing close to nothing to punish those who have committed abuse, he is doing absolutely nothing to expose and bring to justice those who have, for decades, facilitated and covered up the abusers. Just to cite one example: Cardinal Wuerl, who covered up the abuses of McCarrick and others for decades, and whose repeated and blatant lies have been made manifest to everyone who has been paying attention, had to resign in disgrace due to popular outrage. Yet, in accepting his resignation, Pope Francis praised him for his “nobility.” What credibility has the pope left after this kind of statement?

But such behavior is by no means the worst. Going back to the summit and its focus on the abuse of minors, I now wish to bring to your attention two recent and truly horrifying cases involving allegations of ofenses against minors during Pope Francis’ tenure. The pope and many prelates in the Curia are well aware of these allegations, but in neither case was an open and thorough investigation permitted. An objective observer cannot help but suspect that horrible deeds are being covered up.

1. The frst is said to have occurred inside the very walls of the Vatican, at the Pre- Seminary Pius X, which is located just a short walk from the Domus Sanctae Marthae, where Pope Francis lives. That seminary trains minors who serve as altar boys in St. Peter’s Basilica and at papal ceremonies.

One of the seminarians, Kamil Jarzembowski, a roommate of one of the victims, claims to have witnessed dozens of incidents of sexual aggression. Along with two other seminarians, he denounced the aggressor, frst in person to his pre-seminary superiors, then in writing to cardinals, and fnally in 2014, again in writing, to Pope Francis himself. One of the victims was a boy, allegedly abused for fve consecutive years, starting at age 13. The alleged aggressor was a 21-year- old seminarian, Gabriele Martinelli.

That pre-seminary is under the responsibility of the diocese of Como, and is run by the Don Folci Association. A preliminary investigation was entrusted to the judicial vicar of Como, don Andrea Stabellini, who found elements of evidence that warranted further investigation. I received frsthand information indicating that his superiors prohibited his continuing the investigation. He can testify for himself, and I urge you to go and interview him. I pray that he will fnd the courage to share with you what he so courageously shared with me.

Along with the above, I learned how the authorities of the Holy See dealt with this case. After evidence was collected by Don Stabellini, the case was immediately covered up by the then-bishop of Como, Diego Coletti, together with Cardinal Angelo Comastri, Vicar General of Pope Francis for Vatican City. In addition, Cardinal Coccopalmerio, then president of the Pontifcal Council for Legislative Texts, who was consulted by Don Stabellini, strongly admonished him to stop the investigation.

You might wonder how this horrible case was closed. The Bishop of Como removed Don Stabellini from the post of Judicial Vicar; the whistleblower, the seminarian Kamil

148 Jarzembowski, was expelled from the seminary; the two fellow seminarians who had joined him in the denunciation left the seminary; and the alleged abuser, Gabriele Martinelli, was ordained priest in July 2017. All this happened within the Vatican walls, and not a word of it came out during the summit.

The summit was therefore terribly disappointing, for it is hypocrisy to condemn abuses against minors and claim to sympathize with the victims while refusing to face up to the facts honestly. A spiritual revitalization of the clergy is most urgent, but it will ultimately be inefectual if there is no willingness to address the real problem.

2. The second case involves Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra, whom Pope Francis has chosen to be the new Substitute at the Secretariat of State, making him the third most powerful person in the curia. In doing so, the pope essentially ignored a terrifying dossier sent to him by a group of faithful from Maracaibo, entitled “¿Quién es verdaderamente Monseñor Edgar Robinson Peña Parra, Nuevo Sustituto de la Secretarîa de Estado del Vaticano?” (“Who really is Msgr. Edgar Robinson Peña Parra, the new Substitute at the Secretariat of State of the Vatican” – LifeSite) The dossier is signed by Dr. Enrique W. Lagunillas Machado, in the name of the “Grupo de Laicos de la Arquidiócesis de Maracaibo por una Iglesia y un Clero según el Corazón de Cristo” (“Group of Laity of the Archdiocese of Maracaibo for a Church and a Clergy in accordance with the Heart of Christ” – LifeSite). These faithful accused Peña Parra of terrible immorality, describing in detail his alleged crimes. This might even be a scandal surpassing that of McCarrick, and it must not be allowed to be covered by silence.

Some facts have already been published in the media, notably in the Italian weekly L’Espresso. I will now add facts known by the Secretariat of State in the Vatican since 2002, which I learned when I served as the Delegate for Pontifcal Representations.

In January 2000, Maracaibo journalist Gastón Guisandes López made serious accusations against some priests from the diocese of Maracaibo, including Msgr. Peña Parra, involving sexual abuse of minors and other possibly criminal activity.

In 2001, Gastón Guisandes López twice asked to be received by the apostolic nuncio (the Pope’s ambassador) in Venezuela, archbishop André Dupuy, to discuss these matters, but the archbishop inexplicably refused to receive him. He did, however, report to the Secretariat of State that the journalist had accused Msgr. Peña Parra of two very serious crimes, describing the circumstances.

First, Edgar Peña Parra was accused of having seduced, on September 24, 1990, two minor seminarians from the parish of San Pablo, who were to enter the Major Seminary of Maracaibo that same year. The event is said to have taken place in the Church of Nuestra Señora del Rosario, where the Rev. José Severeyn was parish priest. Rev. Severeyn was later removed from the parish by the then archbishop Msgr. Roa Pérez. The case was reported to the police by the parents of the two young men and was dealt with by the then-rector of the major seminary, Rev. Enrique Pérez, and by the then spiritual director, Rev. Emilio Melchor. Rev. Pérez, when questioned by the Secretariat of State, confrmed in writing the episode of September 24, 1990. I have seen these documents with my own eyes.

149 Second, Edgar Peña Parra was allegedly involved, together with [REDACTED], in the death of two people, a doctor and a certain Jairo Pérez, which took place in August 1992, on the island of San Carlos in Lake Maracaibo. They were killed by an electric discharge, and it is not clear whether or not the deaths were accidental. This same accusation is also contained in the aforementioned dossier sent by a group of lay people from Maracaibo, with the additional detail that the two corpses were found naked, with evidence of macabre homosexual lewd encounters. These accusations are, to say the least, extremely grave. Yet not only was Peña Parra not required to face them, he was allowed to continue in the diplomatic service of the Holy See.

These two accusations were reported to the Secretariat of State in 2002 by the then apostolic nuncio in Venezuela, archbishop André Dupuy. The relevant documentation, if it has not been destroyed, can be found both in the archives of the diplomatic personnel of the Secretariat of State where I held the position of Delegate for the Pontifcal Representations, and in the archives of the apostolic nunciature in Venezuela, where the following archbishops have served as nuncios since: Giacinto Berloco, from 2005 to 2009; Pietro Parolin, from 2009 to 2013; and Aldo Giordano, from 2013 to the present. They all had access to the documents reporting these accusations against the future Substitute, as did the cardinals Secretaries of State Sodano, Bertone, and Parolin and the Substitutes Sandri, Filoni, and Becciu.

Particularly egregious is the behavior of Cardinal Parolin who, as Secretary of State, did not oppose the recent appointment of Peña Parra as Substitute, making him his closest collaborator. Even more: years earlier, in January 2011, as apostolic nuncio in Caracas, Parolin did not oppose the appointment of Peña Parra as archbishop and apostolic nuncio to Pakistan. Before such important appointments, a rigorous informative process is made to verify the suitability of the candidate, so these accusations were surely brought to the attention of Cardinal Parolin.

Furthermore, Cardinal Parolin knows the names of a number of priests in the Curia who are sexually unchaste, violating the laws of God that they solemnly committed themselves to teach and practice, and he continues to look the other way.

If Cardinal Parolin’s responsibilities are grave, even more so are those of Pope Francis for having chosen for an extremely important position in the Church a man accused of such serious crimes, without frst insisting on an open and thorough investigation. There is one more scandalous aspect to this horrifc story. Peña Parra is closely connected with Honduras, and more precisely with Cardinal Maradiaga and Bishop Juan José Pineda. Between 2003 and 2007, Peña Parra served in the nunciature in Tegucigalpa, and while there he was very close to Juan José Pineda, who in 2005 was ordained auxiliary bishop of Tegucigalpa, becoming the right-hand man of Cardinal Maradiaga. Juan José Pineda resigned from his post of auxiliary bishop in July 2018, without any reason given to the faithful of Tegucicalpa. Pope Francis has not released the results of the report that the Apostolic Visitor, the Argentine bishop Alcides Casaretto, delivered directly and only to him more than a year ago. How can one interpret Pope Francis’ frm decision not to talk about or answer any question about this matter except as a cover up of the facts and protection of a homosexual network? Such decisions reveal a terrible truth: rather than allowing open and serious investigations of those accused of grave ofenses against the

150 Church, the pope is allowing the Church herself to sufer.

Coming back to your question. You ask me if I see any signs that the Vatican, under Pope Francis, is taking proper steps to address the serious issues of abuse. My answer is simple: Pope Francis himself is covering up abuse right now, as he did for McCarrick. I say this with great sorrow. When King David pronounced the greedy rich man in Nathan’s parable worthy of death, the prophet told him bluntly, “You are the man” (2 Sam 12:1-7). I had hoped my testimony might be received like Nathan’s, but it was instead received like that of Micaiah (1Kings 22:15-27). I pray that this will change. + Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Original Source: LifeSite News

______

June 10, 2019 Interview with the Washington Post

VIGANÒ: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to reply to your questions. I have done so as carefully as I can and out of love for the Church, which is going through one of the most turbulent moments in her history. My detailed answers are found after each of the questions, save those bearing on my personal situation, which I consider irrelevant to the serious problems facing the Church.

What are your thoughts on the outcome of February's four-day Protection of Minors in the Church summit?

Arch. Vigano Together with many authentic, loving Catholic faithful, deacons, priests, bishops, and cardinals, I was praying intensely for the success of the February summit, and I would have rejoiced greatly had it been successful. The initiative of calling all the presidents of the Episcopal Conferences of the world for a meeting in Rome, a frst-time event in the history of the Church, gave many people hope that the severe problems facing her would fnally be addressed forthrightly.

Unfortunately, that initiative turned out to be pure ostentation, for we saw no sign of a genuine willingness to attend to the real causes of the present crisis. Indeed, Pope Francis’s choice of Cardinal [Blase] Cupich, [archbishop of Chicago,] as a leader of the event was itself disturbing. Cupich, you will recall, had stated that focusing on the sex abuse crisis was a “rabbit hole” the Church should not go down, and that Pope Francis had a “bigger agenda” and needed to “get on with other things,” such as “talking about the environment, and protecting migrants.” This, from the man handpicked by the pope to deal with the crisis! Cupich’s comments created negative publicity, and he eventually apologized for them, but only after his charge that the interview was unfairly edited proved groundless. I see no evidence that he is committed to cleaning up the mess and

151 exposing coverups.

The press conferences during the summit were also discouraging. Journalists, especially some courageous women of great experience and professionalism, including some from the secular media, tried in vain to get answers that might have ofered a minimum of credibility to the summit. To cite just one example, Archbishop [Charles] Scicluna, was caught by surprise with a question about the pope covering up in the scandalous case of Argentine Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta —

“How can we believe that this is in fact the last time we’re going to hear ‘no more coverups’ when at the end of the day, Pope Francis covered up for someone in Argentina who had gay porn involving minors?” — uttered these embarrassing words:

“About the case, I’m not, I’m not, you know, I’m not authorized . . . ”

Scicluna’s inept response gave the impression that he needed to be authorized — you may wonder by whom — to tell the truth! Vatican interim press ofce director Alessandro Gisotti quickly intervened to assure the reporters that an investigation had been launched, and that once it was completed they would be informed of the results. One may be forgiven for wondering whether the results of an honest and thorough investigation really will be released and in a timely fashion. Gisotti added that questions about specifc cases were not permitted. There is a certain irony here: This exchange happened while Cupich and Scicluna were discussing what they themselves called transparency.

An especially serious problem is that the summit focused exclusively on the abuse of minors. These crimes are indeed the most horrifc, but the recent crises in the United States, in Chile, in Argentina, in Honduras and elsewhere have to do mostly with abuses committed against young adults, including seminarians, not only, nor mostly, against minors. Indeed, if the problem of homosexuality in the priesthood were honestly acknowledged and properly addressed, the problem of sexual abuse would be far less severe.

Do you see any signs that the Vatican, under Pope Francis, is taking proper steps to address the serious issues of abuse? If not, what is missing?

Arch. Vigano The signs I see are truly ominous. Not only is Pope Francis doing close to nothing to punish those who have committed abuse, he is doing absolutely nothing to expose and bring to justice those who have, for decades, facilitated and covered up the abusers. Just to cite one example: Cardinal [Donald] Wuerl, who covered up the abuses of [then- Cardinal Theodore] McCarrick and others for decades, and whose repeated and blatant lies have been made manifest to everyone who has been paying attention, had to resign in disgrace due to popular outrage. Yet, in accepting his resignation, Pope Francis praised him for his “nobility.” What credibility has the pope left after this kind of

152 statement?

In February, former cardinal Theodore McCarrick was dismissed from the clerical state. What is your assessment of this punishment? And what do you think of the way the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith handled the McCarrick case in the months after your testimony? Lastly, do you think there were any concrete efects (positive or negative) from your testimony?

McCarrick’s degradation from ofce was, as far as it goes, a just punishment, but there is no legitimate reason why it was not exacted more than fve years earlier, and after a proper trial with a judicial procedure. Those with authority to act (i.e. Pope Francis) knew everything they needed to know by June of 2013. Yet my testimony of last August almost certainly accelerated this punishment, which shifted public focus onto McCarrick and away from those who long knew of his crimes and profted by his patronage. Even after the publication of the statement on McCarrick by Cardinal [Timothy] Dolan on June 20, 2018, there was plenty of time for a trial, but it would have been too damaging for many prominent members of the Curia and of course for Pope Francis himself. So, instead of a proper judicial procedure, after more than seven months of total silence, an administrative procedure was deliberately chosen. It is hard to avoid concluding that the timing was designed to manipulate public opinion. Condemning McCarrick as a scapegoat with an exemplary punishment — it was the frst time in Church history that a cardinal was reduced to the lay state — would support the narrative that Pope Francis was frmly determined to fght against clergy sexual abuse.

According to a statement issued by the Press Ofce of the Holy See on Feb. 16, 2019, McCarrick was found guilty by the CDF of “solicitation in the Sacrament of Confession, and sins against the Sixth Commandment” with both minors and adults, with “the aggravating factor of the abuse of power.” The penalty imposed was laicization, which Pope Francis confrmed as “defnitive.” In this way McCarrick, who has always declared himself innocent, was deprived of any opportunity to appeal the sentence. Where is the due process? Is this how justice is done in the Vatican?

Moreover, having made the sentence defnitive, the pope has made it impossible to conduct any further investigation, which could have revealed who in the Curia and elsewhere knew of McCarrick’s abuses, when they knew it, and who helped him to be named archbishop of Washington and eventually a cardinal. Note, by the way, that the documents of this case, whose publication had been promised, have never been produced.

The bottom line is this: Pope Francis is deliberately concealing the McCarrick evidence. I repeat it frmly before God: Pope Francis learned about McCarrick from me on Sunday 23 June 2013, 40 minutes before the Angelus. I told him of McCarrick’s abuses after the pope himself, on his own initiative, asked me about McCarrick.

153 But let us consider the far more important spiritual dimension, which was completely absent from any declaration about McCarrick or any press conference at the summit. The most important purpose of penalties in the canonical order is repentance and conversion: “Suprema ratio est salus animarum” (the supreme law is the salvation of souls). I believe, therefore, that the mere “reduction to the lay state” is completely inadequate, because it does not provide a remedy and does not express the concern for the most important purpose of punishment, namely, the salvation of McCarrick’s soul.

Indeed, unless it is accompanied by other measures, a simple laicization could be considered an expression of contempt for the lay state. The idea that a prelate who misbehaves is punished by being “reduced” to the lay state smacks of clericalism. As Professor Scott Hahn argues, it undermines the meaning of the universal call to holiness. I believe, and I am not the only one, that the penalty of excommunication — from which he can be absolved at any time — should also be imposed on McCarrick. As an appropriately dosed medication, it would be imposed to induce him to take responsibility for his sins, to repent, to be reconciled with God, and thus to save his soul.

Separately, there have been tensions between the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Holy See. Last November, the U.S. bishops were preparing to vote on measures to possibly hold bishops more responsible in their oversight of abuse cases. The Vatican stopped this vote. Do you have any thoughts on this intervention, whether it was appropriate, and why it might have happened? How would you evaluate the actions of the nuncio?

Arch. Vigano Had interference not occurred, the November meeting of the USCCB would unquestionably have examined the problems of episcopal corruption, episcopal coverups and mendacity, episcopal sexual misdeeds, both with minors and adults — any of which would intolerably implicate and embarrass the Holy See. The shutdown was wholly unjustifed in itself but proceeded from panic. The American bishops were exercising their legitimate duties and responsibilities, and one wonders how a pope who calls for “synodality” could carry out such an intrusion.

After you released your testimony, Pope Francis made multiple references to "attacks from the devil" — remarks that many interpreted as a reference to yourself. How did it feel to be cited in this manner by your pontif? In the Gospel we read:

“A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master; it is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household” (Mt.10:24-25).

I am the servant of my master.

There has been a notable lack of denials from the Vatican about the specifcs of your testimony, and Pope Francis has yet to respond. How do you interpret this silence?

154 Arch. Vigano No one has plausibly denied the facts I stated in my original testimony because no one can deny the truth. The cardinals and archbishops I named do not want to be caught lying, and they apparently think they are so powerful as to be untouchable if only they stay quiet and lie low. The real question is, why are journalists letting them get away with this?

Not only have my testimonies not been denied, but some of the facts they contain have been independently confrmed. To cite just two examples, the letter of [then-Archbishop Leonardo] Sandri to [New York] Father [Boniface] Ramsey confrmed my assertion that Vatican ofcials knew of the McCarrick allegations as early as 2000, and Cardinal [Marc] Ouellet, in his open letter to me, confrmed that he told me in person and then put in writing the restrictions imposed by Pope Benedict on McCarrick.

As for Pope Francis, his answer to my testimony was “I will not say a single word about this.” Would he have said that if he knew my testimony were false? Is it not, rather, precisely what a person says who knows but does not want to admit that testimony is true? Is it not what you Americans call “taking the ffth?” By responding as he did, the pope is essentially admitting that he is unwilling to be transparent. Still, the facts remain. McCarrick was a personal friend of Francis for decades before he was elected pope. Francis knew of his crimes, yet rehabilitated him, made him his personal envoy and trusted adviser, and appointed bishops and cardinals who are well-known proteges of McCarrick. Yet he will not say one word about this. Is it surprising that many have interpreted the pope’s answer as manifesting contempt for both the victims and those who want the coverup to end? Ironically, however, the pope’s persistent silence, which has become more and more deafening, ultimately bears witness to the truth of my testimony.

One might point out, to take an analogous case, that Theodore McCarrick has been and remains totally at liberty to speak on any subject to any audience throughout the whole afair. The only reason for him not to speak is that, by doing so, he would make himself worse of than he is already. As a matter of human temperament, neither McCarrick nor Pope Francis have a reputation as men of few words.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Viganò added this after Francis discussed the accusations last month in an interview]

VIGANÒ: It is immensely sad to read Pope Francis’s answers about the McCarrick case, not to mention everything else. He frst says that he has already replied many times; second, that he knew nothing, absolutely nothing about McCarrick, and third, that he forgot about my conversation with him. How may these claims be afrmed and sustained together at the same time? All these three are blatant lies.

First, for nine long months he did not say a word about my testimony, and even bragged and continues to do so about his silence, comparing himself to Jesus. So, either he spoke or he kept silent. Which is it?

Second, everybody knew about McCarrick’s lifelong predatory behavior, from the

155 youngest seminarian in Newark to the highest-ranking prelates in the Vatican.

Third, I repeat in front of God what I stated in my testimony from last August: On June 23rd, 2013 Pope Francis himself asked me about McCarrick, and I told him that there was a huge dossier about his abuses at the Congregation of Bishops, and that he corrupted generations of seminarians. How could anybody, especially a pope, forget this? If he really knew nothing until that day, how could he ignore my warning, and continue to rely on McCarrick as one of his closest advisers?

We are in a truly dark moment for the universal Church: The Supreme Pontif is now blatantly lying to the whole world to cover up his wicked deeds! But the truth will eventually come out, about McCarrick and all the other coverups, as it already has in the case of Cardinal Wuerl, who also “knew nothing” and had “a lapse of memory.”

In his letter in October, Cardinal Ouellet portrayed you as being motivated by bitterness over your own career. Is that true? How would you respond to that?

Arch. Vigano I can only ask impartial persons to examine the decisions that marked my career to see if they smack of ambitious careerism and lust for promotion. By the same token, impartial persons might ask who most profts from dismissal of the Viganò testimony on the grounds of unseemly motivation?

Allow me to repeat this one more time. I am an old man and will be appearing in front of the Good Judge before too long. My silence would make me complicit with the abusers and lead to yet more victims. I know that I am motivated by these concerns, and God knows it. I cannot worry about what others think about my motivation.

In any case, my motivation is not the point, and questions about it are a distraction. The truly important question is whether my testimony is true. I stand by it, and I urge investigations so that the facts may appear. Unfortunately, those who impugn my motives have been unwilling to conduct open and thorough investigations.

Overall, how do you feel the media has covered the story of your testimony? Do you feel outlets have been willing to investigate without bias the accusations you levied?

Arch. Vigano I am saddened that the major news media are not insisting that Pope Francis and other prelates answer my charges, and I cannot imagine that they would have been so timid had the pope in question been John Paul II or Benedict XVI. It is difcult to avoid concluding that these media are reluctant to do so because they appreciate Pope Francis’s more liberal approach to matters of Church doctrine and discipline, and do not want to jeopardize his agenda. Yet what we are talking about here are very serious crimes, often involving minors and allegations of coverup. With few exceptions, and those belonging to peripheral organs, the media have failed to tackle the “crime behind the crime” and put the obvious questions to the obvious people: Where are the archives with documents of the type pertinent to Viganò’s claims? Who has access and authority to publish the documents? Who has in fact examined them and when? What did they fnd or

156 fail to fnd? What eforts at corroboration have been made and by whom? Who is coordinating the investigation of McCarrick? Have McCarrick’s proteges Cupich and [Cardinal Joseph] Tobin been included in the investigation — if not, why not? This is just the beginning.

In short, journalists should be digging for the facts, interviewing the victims, following the money and promotion trails, and uncovering the corrupt networks. There are so many cases to go after. Just to cite one: Have you read the recent book by Martha Alegria Reichmann, about the misdeeds of Cardinal [Oscar Andrés Rodriguez] Maradiaga, chosen by Pope Francis as a trusted senior adviser, in fact the head of the C-9 council? Have you thought of interviewing her? Of investigating her claims? Of requesting an interview with Maradiaga to ask him about all the accusations that have been leveled against him? Of asking Pope Francis why he picked such a man as his adviser?

Your testimony makes it clear that you feel that homosexuality — and the failure of the Vatican to respond to it — is a core part of the Church's current problem in dealing with abuse. Can you explain, with as much clarity as possible, how homosexuality as you view it is correlated with abuse?

Arch. Vigano Let’s keep two arenas distinct: (1) crimes of sexual abuse and (2) criminal coverup of crimes of sexual abuse. In most cases in the Church today, both have a homosexual component — usually downplayed — that is key to the crisis.

As to the frst, heterosexual men obviously do not choose boys and young men as sexual partners of preference, and approximately 80 percent of the victims are males, the vast majority of which are post-pubescent males. Statistics from many diferent countries regarding sexual abuses committed by clergy leave no doubt. Horrifc as the cases of abuse by true pedophiles are, the percentage is far smaller. It is not pedophiles but gay priests preying on post-pubertal boys who have bankrupted the U.S. dioceses. One of the most recent and reliable studies, “Is Catholic clergy sex abuse related to homosexual priests,” was conducted by Father Paul Sullins, PhD, of the Ruth Institute. In its executive summary, the Sullins study reports, among other things, the following:

“The share of homosexual men in the priesthood rose from twice that of the general population in the 1950s to eight times the general population in the 1980s. This trend was strongly correlated with increasing child sex abuse.”

“Estimates from these fndings predict that, had the proportion of homosexual priests remained at the 1950s level, at least 12,000 fewer children, mostly boys, would have sufered abuse.”

The preponderance of these cases of abuse is overwhelming. I do not think anyone can dispute this. That homosexuality is a major cause of the sexual abuse crisis has also been stated by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, in his recent essay,

“The Church and the scandal of sexual abuse.” From his long experience as president of the CDF, he recalls how “in various seminaries homosexual cliques

157 were established, which acted more or less openly and signifcantly changed the climate in the seminaries.”

Given the overwhelming evidence, it is mind-boggling that the word “homosexuality” has not appeared once, in any of the recent ofcial documents of the Holy See, including the two Synods on the Family, the one on Youth, and the recent Summit last February.

As to the second arena, the “gay mafa” among bishops is bound together not by shared sexual intimacy but by a shared interest in protecting and advancing one another professionally and sabotaging all eforts at reform. In his aforementioned essay, Pope Emeritus Benedict noted that a Vatican investigation of seminaries, including the problem of homosexual cliques, “brought no new insights, apparently because various powers had joined forces to conceal the true situation,” and his observation lends credence to my testimony that a powerful network of prelates has, for decades, covered up the abuses. Is there a single active bishop in the United States who admits he is actively homosexual? Of course not. Their work is constitutionally clandestine. Did your time in the United States afect your view on homosexuality? Were your positions hardened in any way by spending time in a country with a very strong and defned subculture of church conservatism/traditionalism?

Arch. Vigano My stay in the United States and the presence of a “very strong and defned subculture of church conservatism/traditionalism,” as you put it, have nothing whatsoever to do with my view on homosexuality. My view has been and will always remain faithful to the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church, which is aptly summarized in the Catechism:

“Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law” (CCC, 2357). The Catechism goes on to say that the inclination to engage in such acts (rather than the persons themselves, who should not be defned by this inclination) is “objectively disordered” and “constitutes for most of them a trial.”

The Church does not respond by condemning them. Quite the contrary, she teaches:

“They must be treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” (CCC, 2358)

The Catechism insists that those who experience this inclination are, like everyone else, called to chastity. This is a beautiful teaching, for the Church afrms the dignity of those who experience same- sex attraction precisely by afrming that by cultivating virtue, they can attain inner freedom and, with the help of genuine friendship, prayer, and sacramental grace,

“resolutely approach Christian perfection” (CCC, 2359).

The Vatican in October promised its own archival investigation into the McCarrick case. The fndings of such an investigation still have not been made public. But if and once they are, what do you think will be revealed?

158 Arch. Vigano To this date, there are no indications such an investigation has even begun. I know for a fact that the results of an honest investigation would be disastrous for the current papacy, and those responsible for initiating the work know this as well. I can only conclude that the assurance of an appropriate archival investigation was an empty promise.

Though the Vatican has not released its own fndings about the McCarrick case, some church historians feel that the details of how McCarrick was protected — once they are revealed — could damage the reputations of Benedict XVI and, even more so, Saint John Paul II. Do you feel that either Benedict XVI or John Paul II could have done more to properly handle McCarrick?

Arch. Vigano I sincerely wish that all documents, if they have not already been destroyed, would be released. It is entirely possible that this would harm the reputation of Benedict XVI and Saint John Paul II, but that is not a good reason for not seeking the truth. Benedict XVI and John Paul II are human beings, and may well have made mistakes. If they did, we want to know about them. Why should they remain hidden? We can all learn from our mistakes.

I myself regret not having spoken publicly earlier. As I already said, I had truly hoped against hope that the Church could reform itself from within. But when it became clear that the successor of Peter himself was one of those covering up the crimes, I had no doubt that the Lord was calling me to speak up, as I have done and will continue to do.

Do you think there is a risk of schism in the American Church?

Arch. Vigano A schism is the most terrible afiction that the Church, the body of Christ, can endure, and as the history of the Church teaches, it can have lasting consequences. We should pray that such a catastrophe never again befall her. A formal schism (involving mutual excommunication of validly ordained bishops and subsequent lay realignment) seems unlikely at the moment. However, there is already a de facto schism based on acceptance or rejection of the sexual revolution. And there is a risk is of formal schism, which could be provoked by an act of grotesque papal irresponsibility (e.g., if he were to answer the long-ignored dubia about the teaching of Amoris Laetitia in a manner contrary to previous Church teaching).

In the aftermath of the release of your testimony, have you felt in moments like the spiritual leader of a rebellious movement? And if so, how do you handle that? Whether you feel a leadership role, how would you describe this movement — in terms of size and geographic reach?

Arch. Vigano Jesus is the only leader of the Church. He is the head of the Church, which is His body. All of us, the pope included, have just one Lord. Regarding my role, as a Christian and bishop I have the duty to witness to the truth without fear, and like Timothy “to preach the

159 gospel in season and out of season” (2 Tim. 4: 2). No pope can dispense from that duty, and if a man faithfully fulflls it, he cannot be rebellious in any but an honorable sense. Dishonorably rebellious are those who presume to break or change the perennial tradition of the Church.

In the aftermath of the release of your testimony, how has the magnitude of those actions changed your life? How free are you to live life as you please?

Arch. Vigano n/a

If you could redo events, would you still ask for the Pope Francis's resignation? Do you think asking for the pope's resignation took attention away from your message?

Arch. Vigano I did the best I could with my testimony, and the Lord asks no more than that. I stand by that testimony. Still, I am far from perfect, and I can see, in retrospect, how certain points might have been better stated. I can see that it would have been better to address the matter you ask about in the following way, beginning with a point I included in my third testimony: “I am asking, indeed earnestly begging, the Holy Father to face up to the commitments he himself made in assuming his ofce as successor of Peter. He took upon himself the mission of confrming his brothers and guiding all souls in following Christ, in the spiritual combat, along the way of the cross. Let him admit his errors, repent, show his willingness to follow the mandate given to Peter and, once converted, let him confrm his brothers (Lk 22:32).”

I would have pointed out that Saint Peter himself denied Christ three times, but then wept bitterly and repented. Then I would have said what I say now: May Pope Francis imitate St. Peter! But if Pope Francis refuses to admit his mistakes and ask for forgiveness, so he can carry out the mandate he received from Christ, he should resign.

How does it feel to be following these major Church developments — the McCarrick defrocking; the abuse summit — from afar? Do you feel saddened, in a way, to be at a distance from the Catholic Church at this critical moment?

Arch. Vigano My feelings, in a matter of this gravity, are of no consequence. I spoke what I believed needed to be spoken, lest the falsehoods go unchallenged and harm my soul and the souls of others.

Are you able to state the country, or even the continent, where you are right now?

Arch. Vigano n/a

Roughly how many people know of your whereabouts? How many people do you have in-person contact with on a daily basis?

160 Arch. Vigano n/a

Can you provide a description of your daily life?

Arch. Vigano I answer this question with reluctance, as this puts the focus on me rather than on what is important.

My life has not changed very much. Of course, I have to be more careful about whom I meet and what I say, but I have been blessed with a large family, and many friends who have been supportive. I see them regularly and their closeness is a source of great consolation for me.

Perhaps the biggest change after my frst testimony is the incredible outpouring of support that I receive daily from all over the world. There are thousands of Catholics who are praying for me and with me for the conversion of Pope Francis and for the healing of the Church.

All in all, very little has changed. I am doing what I have been doing all my life: Since I have been ordained a priest I have been trying to serve the people of God, in obedience, wherever I was asked to go. I am just a simple person who is trying to do his best, and I have been blessed to receive very good examples from holy and dedicated priests during my whole life.

Do you say Mass?

Arch. Vigano Forgive me for being surprised by this question but . . . why would I not say Mass? We’re speaking about the Bread of Life! Of course I celebrate Mass, every day, like any other priest in good standing.

Do you pray for the pope?

Arch. Vigano I have never ceased praying for the pope; I never will.

Do you believe your safety is under threat, and if so, why? Have you received outright threats?

Arch. Vigano n/a

What precautions do you take to protect yourself?

161 Arch. Vigano n/a

Since the release of your testimony, have you been contacted by the Holy See? If so, what did they say?

Arch. Vigano Apart from the open letter from Cardinal Ouellet, to which I have already responded, no one has contacted me about anything.

Are you aware of being canonically investigated? If so, for what charges? Under any circumstances, would you "surrender" to Vatican authorities?

Arch. Vigano As I said, there is nothing I am aware of. Would it not be amazing if the whistleblower ended up being investigated, instead of the prelates who cover up abuse?

Unfortunately, an alarming percentage of people experience abuse early in their lives, when they are most vulnerable. In your testimony, it was clear that you felt empathy for victims and felt a great personal responsibility to act. Did you ever witness abuse yourself? Or were you ever the victim of abuse?

Arch. Vigano I have never been abused or personally witnessed abuse, thank God. But any decent human being, victim or not, would empathize with and desire to help the victims.

What convinced you to come forward with your testimony? What was the "fnal straw"?

Arch. Vigano I have already answered this above and in my previous testimonies.

Are you in contact with loved ones? If so, what do they think about your actions?

Arch. Vigano n/a

Are you lonely?

Arch. Vigano I am not. The Lord is my constant companion.

Did you realize, when you released this testimony, that your life would change so drastically? How did you feel during those days in late August 2018 when you were about to cross the Rubicon?

162 Arch. Vigano My conscience has always been clear about this: The truth makes us free.

When you decided to act, were you inspired by Saint Thomas More, or by any other historic fgure?

Arch. Vigano I was inspired by Blessed Cardinal Newman who said,

“if I am obliged to bring religion into after-dinner toasts, I shall drink — to the pope, if you please — still, to Conscience frst, and to the pope afterwards,” and by Saint John Fisher, the sole bishop of the Catholic Church in England who did not bend to Henry VIII. These his words are so appropriate for our time:

“The light of good example is extinguished in those who ought to shine as luminaries to the whole world, like watchtowers and beacons on the mountains. No light, alas! comes from them, but horrid darkness and pestilent mischief, by which innumerable souls are falling into destruction.” (Blessed John Fisher, by Rev. T.E. Bridgett, London (1888), p. 435)

Have you been recognized in public? If so, what was the reaction and what was your reaction?

Arch. Vigano n/a

When you go out, are you in disguise?

Arch. Vigano n/a

Do you think that at some point you will be able to lead a "normal" life again? What would have to happen before that is possible?

Arch. Vigano My life is quite normal, thank you for asking.

Do you think there could ever be a reconciliation with Francis? Do you hope for one?

Arch. Vigano The premise of your question is incorrect. I am not fghting against Pope Francis, nor have I ofended him. I have simply spoken the truth. Pope Francis needs to reconcile himself with God, and the entire Church, since he covered up for McCarrick, refuses to admit it, and is now covering up for several other people. I am grateful to the Lord

163 because He has protected me from having any sentiments of anger or resentment against Pope Francis, or any desire for revenge. I pray for his conversion every day. Nothing would make me happier than for Pope Francis to acknowledge and end the coverups, and to confrm his brothers in the faith.

How do you look back on your many years of service in the church? Do you wish you had spoken out earlier? And do you feel that you erred in devoting your life to that institution?

Arch. Vigano I served the Holy See for 43 years with great joy and full dedication, with spiritual and human satisfaction. Of course with my many limits, but trusting in my superiors who were always good and appreciative of my collaboration. Sometimes I accepted risky missions, such as those in Iraq, Kuwait and Nigeria. I had excellent relations with superiors, colleagues, and lay co-workers. Cardinal Bertone, after being appointed secretary of state, found a way to get rid of me because I refused to approve unworthy candidates that he was pushing to be made bishops: He ofered me the position of secretary general of the governorate. It was certainly not a promotion, but I accepted gladly.

There are no reasons why I should regret having served the Holy See. I have always tried to follow the will of God through obedience. I never asked for a promotion, and I do not regret having turned down the proposal of Pope Benedict, who ofered me a position of cardinal in the Curia. Those who plotted my departure from Rome thought they were going to get rid of me. Little did they know that the Lord was using them to put me in a position to speak out about the McCarrick scandal.

In your testimony, you provided many details, but there was no additional documentation — which would prove helpful in corroborating your testimony. Do you have any of the documents and letters you reference in your testimony? And, do you have any additional documentation that would show the Vatican's preexisting knowledge about McCarrick's behavior? If you are in possession of such documents, can you please share them with us, as they would be immeasurably helpful.

Arch. Vigano The time has not yet come for me to release anything. I suggest you ask Pope Francis and the prelates I named in my testimony to release the relevant documentation, some of which is quite incriminating, assuming they have not yet destroyed it.

Specifcally, do you have the letter you wrote to Cardinal Parolin asking if the sanctions imposed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI are still in place? If so, could you please share it with us?

Arch. Vigano See the previous question.

164 VIGANÒ: In conclusion, I wish to point out that the current crisis is not a power struggle between progressive and conservatives, between left and right. Neither is it primarily about the sexual misbehavior of the clergy, or the prevalence of active homosexuals in the clergy, though these grave problems, which are perennial in the Church, are especially severe now. The crisis is about the fact that a corrupt “mafa” has taken control of many institutions of the Church, from the top down, and is exploiting the Church and the faithful for its own immoral purposes. As I noted above, this coalition is bound together not by shared sexual intimacy but by a shared interest in protecting and advancing one another professionally and in sabotaging every efort to reform the sexual corruption. Yet the members of this alliance, and those who fear its wrath, are the only ones with the authority to correct the problem through proper judicial procedures, the imposition of discipline and the reafrmation of sound teaching.

This is causing an institutional paralysis that is immensely demoralizing for the faithful. That said, we should be neither entirely surprised nor overly disturbed by this desperate state of afairs, given the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit and Christ’s promise to come again and establish his defnitive kingdom. I conclude by quoting a sobering passage from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which seems to be verifed in our own age:

Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a fnal trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception ofering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. (CCC, 675)

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

Original Source: the Washington Post

January 13, 2019

Letter to McCarrick: "Repent"

Dear Archbishop McCarrick, As has been reported as a news by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the accusations against you for crimes against minors and abuses against seminarians are going to be examined and judged very soon with an administrative procedure.

No matter what decision the supreme authority of the Church takes in your case, what really matters and what has saddened those who love you and pray for you is the fact that throughout these months you haven’t given any sign of repentance. I am among those who are praying for your conversion, that you may repent and ask pardon of your victims and the Church.

Time is running out, but you can confess and repent of your sins, crimes and sacrileges, and do so publicly, since they have themselves become public. Your eternal salvation is

165 at stake.

But something else of great importance is also at stake. You, paradoxically, have at your disposal an immense ofer of great hope for you from the Lord Jesus; you are in a position to do great good for the Church. In fact, you are now in a position to do something that has become more important for the Church than all of the good things you did for her throughout your entire life.

A public repentance on your part would bring a signifcant measure of healing to a gravely wounded and sufering Church. Are you willing to ofer her that gift? Christ died for us all when we were still sinners (Rom. 5: 8). He only asks that we respond by repenting and doing the good that we are given to do. The good that you are in a position to do now is to ofer the Church your sincere and public repentance. Will you give the Church that gift? I implore you, repent publicly of your sins, so as to make the Church rejoice and present yourself before the tribunal of Our Lord cleansed by His blood. Please, do not make His sacrifce on the cross void for you. Christ, Our Good Lord, continues to love you. Put your entire trust in His Sacred Heart. And pray to Mary, as I and many others are doing, asking her to intercede for the salvation of your soul.

“Maria Mater Gratiae, Mater Misericordiae, Tu nos ab hoste protege et mortis hora suscipeʺ.

Mary Mother of the Grace, Mother of Mercy, protect us from the enemy and welcome us in the hour of death.

Your brother in Christ, + Carlo Maria Viganò

Original Source: Catholic News Agency

November 13, 2018 Message to USCCB General Assembly

I am writing to remind you of the sacred mandate you were given on the day of your episcopal ordination: to lead the fock to Christ.

Meditate on Proverbs 9:10:

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom!

Do not behave like frightened sheep, but as courageous shepherds. Do not be afraid of standing up and doing the right thing for the victims, for the faithful and for your own salvation. The Lord will render to every one of us according to our actions and omissions. I am fasting and praying for you.

166 + Carlo Maria Viganò

Original Source: Catholic News Agency

______

October 19, 2018

The Third Testimony: McCarrick and Oullett

To bear witness to corruption in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church was a painful decision for me, and remains so.

But I am an old man, one who knows he must soon give an accounting to the judge for his actions and omissions, one who fears Him who can cast body and soul into hell.

A judge, even in his infnite mercy, will render to every person salvation or damnation according to what he has deserved.

Anticipating the dreadful question from that judge — “How could you, who had knowledge of the truth, keep silent in the midst of falsehood and depravity?” — what answer could I give?

I testifed fully aware that my testimony would bring alarm and dismay to many eminent persons: Churchmen, fellow bishops, colleagues with whom I had worked and prayed. I knew many would feel wounded and betrayed.

I expected that some would in their turn assail me and my motives.

Most painful of all, I knew that many of the innocent faithful would be confused and disconcerted by the spectacle of a bishop’s charging colleagues and superiors with malfeasance, sexual sin, and grave neglect of duty.

Yet I believe that my continued silence would put many souls at risk, and would certainly damn my own.

Having reported multiple times to my superiors, and even to the pope, the aberrant behavior of Theodore McCarrick, I could have publicly denounced the truths of which I was aware earlier.

If I have some responsibility in this delay, I repent for that.

This delay was due to the gravity of the decision I was going to take, and to the long travail of my conscience.

I have been accused of creating confusion and division in the Church through my testimony.

167 To those who believe such confusion and division were negligible prior to August 2018, perhaps such a claim is plausible.

Most impartial observers, however, will have been aware of a longstanding excess of both, as is inevitable when the successor of Peter is negligent in exercising his principal mission, which is to confrm the brothers in the faith and in sound moral doctrine.

When he then exacerbates the crisis by contradictory or perplexing statements about these doctrines, the confusion is worsened.

Therefore I spoke.

For it is the conspiracy of silence that has wrought and continues to wreak great harm in the Church — harm to so many innocent souls, to young priestly vocations, to the faithful at large.

With regard to my decision, which I have taken in conscience before God, I willingly accept every fraternal correction, advice, recommendation, and invitation to progress in my life of faith and love for Christ, the Church and the pope.

Let me restate the key points of my testimony.

•In November 2000 the U.S. nuncio Archbishop (Gabriel) Montalvo informed the Holy See of Cardinal McCarrick’s homosexual behavior with seminarians and priests. •In December 2006 the new U.S. nuncio, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, informed the Holy See of Cardinal McCarrick’s homosexual behavior with yet another priest. •In December of 2006 I myself wrote a memo to the Secretary of State Cardinal (Tarcisio) Bertone, and personally delivered it to the Substitute for General Afairs, Archbishop Leonardo Sandri, calling for the pope to bring extraordinary disciplinary measures against McCarrick to forestall future crimes and scandal. This memo received no response. •In April 2008 an open letter to Pope Benedict by Richard Sipe was relayed by the Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal (William) Levada, to the Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone, containing further accusations of McCarrick’s sleeping with seminarians and priests. I received this a month later, and in May 2008 I myself delivered a second memo to the then Substitute for General Afairs, Archbishop Fernando Filoni, reporting the claims against McCarrick and calling for sanctions against him. This second memo also received no response. •In 2009 or 2010 I learned from Cardinal (Giovanni Battista) Re, prefect of the Congregation of Bishops, that Pope Benedict had ordered McCarrick to cease public ministry and begin a life of prayer and penance. The nuncio Sambi communicated the Pope’s orders to McCarrick in a voice heard down the corridor of the nunciature. •In November 2011 Cardinal (Marc) Ouellet, the new Prefect of Bishops, repeated

168 to me, the new nuncio to the U.S., the Pope’s restrictions on McCarrick, and I myself communicated them to McCarrick face-to-face. •On June 21, 2013, toward the end of an ofcial assembly of nuncios at the Vatican, Pope Francis spoke cryptic words to me criticizing the U.S. episcopacy. •On June 23, 2013, I met Pope Francis face-to-face in his apartment to ask for clarifcation, and the Pope asked me, “il cardinale McCarrick, com’è (Cardinal McCarrick — what do you make of him)?”– which I can only interpret as a feigning of curiosity in order to discover whether or not I was an ally of McCarrick. I told him that McCarrick had sexually corrupted generations of priests and seminarians, and had been ordered by Pope Benedict to confne himself to a life of prayer and penance. •Instead, McCarrick continued to enjoy the special regard of Pope Francis and was given new responsibilities and missions by him. •McCarrick was part of a network of bishops promoting homosexuality who exploiting their favor with Pope Francis manipulated episcopal appointments so as to protect themselves from justice and to strengthen the homosexual network in the hierarchy and in the Church at large. •Pope Francis himself has either colluded in this corruption, or, knowing what he does, is gravely negligent in failing to oppose it and uproot it. I invoked God as my witness to the truth of my claims, and none has been shown false. Cardinal Ouellet has written to rebuke me for my temerity in breaking silence and leveling such grave accusations against my brothers and superiors, but in truth his remonstrance confrms me in my decision and, even more, serves to vindicate my claims, severally and as a whole.

•Cardinal Ouellet concedes that he spoke with me about McCarrick’s situation prior to my leaving for Washington to begin my post as nuncio. •Cardinal Ouellet concedes that he communicated to me in writing the conditions and restrictions imposed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict. •Cardinal Ouellet concedes that these restrictions forbade McCarrick to travel or to make public appearances. •Cardinal Ouellet concedes that the Congregation of Bishops, in writing, frst through the nuncio Sambi and then once again through me, required McCarrick to lead a life of prayer and penance. What does Cardinal Ouellet dispute?

•Cardinal Ouellet disputes the possibility that Pope Francis could have taken in important information about McCarrick on a day when he met scores of nuncios and gave each only a few moments of conversation. But this was not my testimony. My testimony is that at a second, private meeting, I informed the Pope, answering his own question about Theodore McCarrick, then Cardinal archbishop emeritus of Washington, prominent fgure of the Church in the US, telling the pope that McCarrick had sexually corrupted his own seminarians and priests. No pope could forget that.

169 •Cardinal Ouellet disputes the existence in his archives of letters signed by Pope Benedict or Pope Francis regarding sanctions on McCarrick. But this was not my testimony. My testimony was that he has in his archives key documents – irrespective of provenance – incriminating McCarrick and documenting the measures taken in his regard, and other proofs on the cover-up regarding his situation. And I confrm this again. •Cardinal Ouellet disputes the existence in the fles of his predecessor, Cardinal Re, of “audience memos” imposing on McCarrick the restrictions already mentioned. But this was not my testimony. My testimony is that there are other documents: for instance, a note from Card. Re not ex-Audientia SS.mi, or signed by the Secretary of State or by the Substitute. •Cardinal Ouellet disputes that it is false to present the measures taken against McCarrick as “sanctions” decreed by Pope Benedict and canceled by Pope Francis. True. They were not technically “sanctions” but provisions, “conditions and restrictions.” To quibble whether they were sanctions or provisions or something else is pure legalism. From a pastoral point of view they are exactly the same thing. In brief, Cardinal Ouellet concedes the important claims that I did and do make, and disputes claims I don’t make and never made.

There is one point on which I must absolutely refute what Cardinal Ouellet wrote. The Cardinal states that the Holy See was only aware of “rumors,” which were not enough to justify disciplinary measures against McCarrick.

I afrm to the contrary that the Holy See was aware of a variety of concrete facts, and is in possession of documentary proof, and that the responsible persons nevertheless chose not to intervene or were prevented from doing so.

Compensation by the Archdiocese of Newark and the Diocese of Metuchen to the victims of McCarrick’s sexual abuse, the letters of Fr. Ramsey, of the nuncios Montalvo in 2000 and Sambi in 2006, of Dr. Sipe in 2008, my two notes to the superiors of the Secretariat of State who described in detail the concrete allegations against McCarrick; are all these just rumors?

They are ofcial correspondence, not gossip from the sacristy.

The crimes reported were very serious, including those of attempting to give sacramental absolution to accomplices in perverse acts, with subsequent sacrilegious celebration of Mass.

These documents specify the identity of the perpetrators and their protectors, and the chronological sequence of the facts.

They are kept in the appropriate archives; no extraordinary investigation is needed to recover them.

170 In the public remonstrances directed at me I have noted two omissions, two dramatic silences.

The frst silence regards the plight of the victims.

The second regards the underlying reason why there are so many victims, namely, the corrupting infuence of homosexuality in the priesthood and in the hierarchy.

As to the frst, it is dismaying that, amid all the scandals and indignation, so little thought should be given to those damaged by the sexual predations of those commissioned as ministers of the gospel. This is not a matter of settling scores or sulking over the vicissitudes of ecclesiastical careers. It is not a matter of politics. It is not a matter of how church historians may evaluate this or that papacy. This is about souls. Many souls have been and are even now imperiled of their eternal salvation.

As to the second silence, this very grave crisis cannot be properly addressed and resolved unless and until we call things by their true names. This is a crisis due to the scourge of homosexuality, in its agents, in its motives, in its resistance to reform. It is no exaggeration to say that homosexuality has become a plague in the clergy, and it can only be eradicated with spiritual weapons. It is an enormous hypocrisy condemn the abuser, claim to weep for the victims, and yet refuse to denounce the root cause of so much sexual abuse: homosexuality. It is hypocrisy to refuse to acknowledge that this scourge is due to a serious crisis in the spiritual life of the clergy and to fail to take the steps necessary to remedy it.

Unquestionably there exist philandering clergy, and unquestionably they too damage their own souls, the souls of those whom they corrupt, and the Church at large. But these violations of priestly celibacy are usually confned to the individuals immediately involved. Philandering clergy usually do not recruit other philanderers, nor work to promote them, nor cover-up their misdeeds — whereas the evidence for homosexual collusion, with its deep roots that are so difcult to eradicate, is overwhelming.

It is well established that homosexual predators exploit clerical privilege to their advantage.

But to claim the crisis itself to be clericalism is pure sophistry.

It is to pretend that a means, a new instrument, is in fact the main motive. Denouncing homosexual corruption and the moral cowardice that allows it to fourish does not meet with congratulation in our times, not even in the highest spheres of the Church.

I am not surprised that in calling attention to these plagues I am charged with disloyalty to the Holy Father and with fomenting an open and scandalous rebellion. Yet rebellion would entail urging others to topple the papacy.

I am urging no such thing.

171 I pray every day for Pope Francis — more than I have ever done for the other popes. I am asking, indeed earnestly begging, the Holy Father to face up to the commitments he himself made in assuming his ofce as successor of Peter.

He took upon himself the mission of confrming his brothers and guiding all souls in following Christ, in the spiritual combat, along the way of the cross.

Let him admit his errors, repent, show his willingness to follow the mandate given to Peter and, once converted let him confrm his brothers (Lk 22:32).

In closing, I wish to repeat my appeal to my brother bishops and priests who know that my statements are true and who can so testify, or who have access to documents that can put the matter beyond doubt.

You too are faced with a choice.

You can choose to withdraw from the battle, to prop up the conspiracy of silence and avert your eyes from the spreading of corruption.

You can make excuses, compromises and justifcation that put of the day of reckoning. You can console yourselves with the falsehood and the delusion that it will be easier to tell the truth tomorrow, and then the following day, and so on.

On the other hand, you can choose to speak.

You can trust Him who told us, “the truth will set you free.”

I do not say it will be easy to decide between silence and speaking.

I urge you to consider which choice– on your deathbed, and then before the just Judge — you will not regret having made.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

September 29, 2018 The 2nd Testimony

172 Before starting my writing, I would frst of all like to give thanks and glory to God the Father for every situation and trial that He has prepared and will prepare for me during my life. As a priest and bishop of the holy Church, spouse of Christ, I am called like every baptized person to bear witness to the truth. By the gift of the Spirit who sustains me with joy on the path that I am called to travel, I intend to do so until the end of my days. Our only Lord has addressed also to me the invitation, “Follow me!”, and I intend to follow him with the help of his grace until the end of my days.

“As long as I have life, I will sing to the Lord, I will sing praise to my God while I have being. May my song be pleasing to him; For I rejoice in the Lord.” (Psalm 103:33-34)

*****

It has been a month since I ofered my testimony, solely for the good of the Church, regarding what occurred at the audience with Pope Francis on June 23, 2013 and regarding certain matters I was given to know in the assignments entrusted to me at the Secretariat of State and in Washington, in relation to those who bear responsibility for covering up the crimes committed by the former archbishop of that capital.

My decision to reveal those grave facts was for me the most painful and serious decision that I have ever made in my life. I made it after long refection and prayer, during months of profound sufering and anguish, during a crescendo of continual news of terrible events, with thousands of innocent victims destroyed and the vocations and lives of young priests and religious disturbed. The silence of the pastors who could have provided a remedy and prevented new victims became increasingly indefensible, a devastating crime for the Church. Well aware of the enormous consequences that my testimony could have, because what I was about to reveal involved the successor of Peter himself, I nonetheless chose to speak in order to protect the Church, and I declare with a clear conscience before God that my testimony is true. Christ died for the Church, and Peter, Servus servorum Dei, is the frst one called to serve the spouse of Christ. Certainly, some of the facts that I was to reveal were covered by the pontifcal secret that I had promised to observe and that I had faithfully observed from the beginning of my service to the Holy See. But the purpose of any secret, including the pontifcal secret, is to protect the Church from her enemies, not to cover up and become complicit in crimes committed by some of her members. I was a witness, not by my choice, of shocking facts and, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church states (par. 2491), the seal of secrecy is not binding when very grave harm can be avoided only by divulging the truth. Only the seal of confession could have justifed my silence.

Neither the pope, nor any of the cardinals in Rome have denied the facts I asserted in my testimony. “Qui tacet consentit” surely applies here, for if they deny my testimony, they have only to say so, and provide documentation to support that denial. How can one avoid concluding that the reason they do not provide the documentation is that they know it confrms my testimony?

173 The center of my testimony was that since at least June 23, 2013, the pope knew from me how perverse and evil McCarrick was in his intentions and actions, and instead of taking the measures that every good pastor would have taken, the pope made McCarrick one of his principal agents in governing the Church, in regard to the United States, the Curia, and even China, as we are seeing these days with great concern and anxiety for that martyr Church.

Now, the pope’s reply to my testimony was: “I will not say a word!” But then, contradicting himself, he has compared his silence to that of Jesus in Nazareth and before Pilate, and compared me to the great accuser, Satan, who sows scandal and division in the Church — though without ever uttering my name. If he had said: “Viganò lied,” he would have challenged my credibility while trying to afrm his own. In so doing he would have intensifed the demand of the people of God and the world for the documentation needed to determine who has told the truth. Instead, he put in place a subtle slander against me — slander being an ofense he has often compared to the gravity of murder. Indeed, he did it repeatedly, in the context of the celebration of the most Holy Sacrament, the Eucharist, where he runs no risk of being challenged by journalists. When he did speak to journalists, he asked them to exercise their professional maturity and draw their own conclusions. But how can journalists discover and know the truth if those directly involved with a matter refuse to answer any questions or to release any documents? The pope’s unwillingness to respond to my charges and his deafness to the appeals by the faithful for accountability are hardly consistent with his calls for transparency and bridge building.

Moreover, the pope’s cover-up of McCarrick was clearly not an isolated mistake. Many more instances have recently been documented in the press, showing that Pope Francis has defended homosexual clergy who committed serious sexual abuses against minors or adults. These include his role in the case of Fr. Julio Grassi in Buenos Aires, his reinstatement of Fr. Mauro Inzoli after Pope Benedict had removed him from ministry (until he went to prison, at which point Pope Francis laicized him), and his halting of the investigation of sex abuse allegations against Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor. In the meantime, a delegation of the USCCB, headed by its president Cardinal DiNardo, went to Rome asking for a Vatican investigation into McCarrick. Cardinal DiNardo and the other prelates should tell the Church in America and in the world: did the pope refuse to carry out a Vatican investigation into McCarrick’s crimes and of those responsible for covering them up? The faithful deserve to know.

I would like to make a special appeal to Cardinal Ouellet, because as nuncio I always worked in great harmony with him, and I have always had great esteem and afection towards him. He will remember when, at the end of my mission in Washington, he received me at his apartment in Rome in the evening for a long conversation. At the beginning of Pope Francis’ pontifcate, he had maintained his dignity, as he had shown with courage when he was Archbishop of Québec. Later, however, when his work as prefect of the Congregation for Bishops was being undermined because recommendations for episcopal appointments were being passed directly to Pope Francis by two homosexual “friends” of his dicastery, bypassing the Cardinal, he gave up. His long article in L’Osservatore Romano, in which he came out in favor of the more

174 controversial aspects of Amoris Laetitia, represents his surrender. Your Eminence, before I left for Washington, you were the one who told me of Pope Benedict’s sanctions on McCarrick. You have at your complete disposal key documents incriminating McCarrick and many in the curia for their cover-ups. Your Eminence, I urge you to bear witness to the truth. ***** Finally, I wish to encourage you, dear faithful, my brothers and sisters in Christ: never be despondent! Make your own the act of faith and complete confdence in Christ Jesus, our Savior, of Saint Paul in his second Letter to Timothy, Scio cui credidi, which I choose as my episcopal motto. This is a time of repentance, of conversion, of prayers, of grace, to prepare the Church, the bride of the Lamb, ready to fght and win with Mary the battle against the old dragon.

To commemorate my episcopal ordination on April 26, 1992, conferred on me by St. John Paul II, I chose this image taken from a mosaic of the Basilica of St. Mark in Venice. It represents the miracle of the calming of the storm. I was struck by the fact that in the boat of Peter, tossed by the water, the fgure of Jesus is portrayed twice. Jesus is sound asleep in the bow, while Peter tries to wake him up: “Master, do you not care that we are about to die?” Meanwhile the apostles, terrifed, look each in a diferent direction and do not realize that Jesus is standing behind them, blessing them and assuredly in command of the boat: “He awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, ‘Quiet! Be still,’ … then he said to them, ‘Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?’” (Mk 4:38-40).

The scene is very timely in portraying the tremendous storm the Church is passing through in this moment, but with a substantial diference: the successor of Peter not only fails to see the Lord in full control of the boat, it seems he does not even intend to awaken Jesus sleep in the bow.

Has Christ perhaps become invisible to his vicar? Perhaps is he being tempted to try to act as a substitute of our only Master and Lord?

The Lord is in full control of the boat!

May Christ, the Truth, always be the light on our way!

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

______

September 29, 2018 The First Testimony: McCarrick

In this tragic moment for the Church in various parts of the world — the United States, Chile, Honduras, Australia, etc. — bishops have a very grave responsibility. I am thinking in particular of the United States of America, where I was sent as Apostolic Nuncio by Pope Benedict XVI on October 19, 2011, the memorial feast of the First North American Martyrs. The Bishops of the United States are called, and I with them, to follow the

175 example of these frst martyrs who brought the Gospel to the lands of America, to be credible witnesses of the immeasurable love of Christ, the Way, the Truth and the Life. Bishops and priests, abusing their authority, have committed horrendous crimes to the detriment of their faithful, minors, innocent victims, and young men eager to ofer their lives to the Church, or by their silence have not prevented that such crimes continue to be perpetrated.

To restore the beauty of holiness to the face of the Bride of Christ, which is terribly disfgured by so many abominable crimes, and if we truly want to free the Church from the fetid swamp into which she has fallen, we must have the courage to tear down the culture of secrecy and publicly confess the truths we have kept hidden. We must tear down the conspiracy of silence with which bishops and priests have protected themselves at the expense of their faithful, a conspiracy of silence that in the eyes of the world risks making the Church look like a sect, a conspiracy of silence not so dissimilar from the one that prevails in the mafa. “Whatever you have said in the dark ... shall be proclaimed from the housetops” (Lk. 12:3).

I had always believed and hoped that the hierarchy of the Church could fnd within itself the spiritual resources and strength to tell the whole truth, to amend and to renew itself. That is why, even though I had repeatedly been asked to do so, I always avoided making statements to the media, even when it would have been my right to do so, in order to defend myself against the calumnies published about me, even by high-ranking prelates of the Roman Curia. But now that the corruption has reached the very top of the Church’s hierarchy, my conscience dictates that I reveal those truths regarding the heart-breaking case of the Archbishop Emeritus of Washington, D.C., Theodore McCarrick, which I came to know in the course of the duties entrusted to me by St. John Paul II, as Delegate for Pontifcal Representations, from 1998 to 2009, and by Pope Benedict XVI, as Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America, from October 19, 2011 until end of May 2016. As Delegate for Pontifcal Representations in the Secretariat of State, my responsibilities were not limited to the Apostolic Nunciatures, but also included the staf of the Roman Curia (hires, promotions, informational processes on candidates to the episcopate, etc.) and the examination of delicate cases, including those regarding cardinals and bishops, that were entrusted to the Delegate by the Cardinal Secretary of State or by the Substitute of the Secretariat of State.

To dispel suspicions insinuated in several recent articles, I will immediately say that the Apostolic Nuncios in the United States, Gabriel Montalvo and Pietro Sambi, both prematurely deceased, did not fail to inform the Holy See immediately, as soon as they learned of Archbishop McCarrick’s gravely immoral behavior with seminarians and priests. Indeed, according to what Nuncio Pietro Sambi wrote, Father Boniface Ramsey, O.P.’s letter, dated November 22, 2000, was written at the request of the late Nuncio Montalvo. In the letter, Father Ramsey, who had been a professor at the diocesan seminary in Newark from the end of the ’80s until 1996, afrms that there was a recurring rumor in the seminary that the Archbishop “shared his bed with seminarians,” inviting fve at a time to spend the weekend with him at his beach house. And he added that he knew a certain number of seminarians, some of whom were later ordained priests for the Archdiocese of Newark, who had been invited to this beach house and had shared a bed with the Archbishop.

176 The ofce that I held at the time was not informed of any measure taken by the Holy See after those charges were brought by Nuncio Montalvo at the end of 2000, when Cardinal Angelo Sodano was Secretary of State. Likewise, Nuncio Sambi transmitted to the Cardinal Secretary of State, Tarcisio Bertone, an Indictment Memorandum against McCarrick by the priest Gregory Littleton of the diocese of Charlotte, who was reduced to the lay state for a violation of minors, together with two documents from the same Littleton, in which he recounted his tragic story of sexual abuse by the then-Archbishop of Newark and several other priests and seminarians. The Nuncio added that Littleton had already forwarded his Memorandum to about twenty people, including civil and ecclesiastical judicial authorities, police and lawyers, in June 2006, and that it was therefore very likely that the news would soon be made public. He therefore called for a prompt intervention by the Holy See. In writing up a memo1 on these documents that were entrusted to me, as Delegate for Pontifcal Representations, on December 6, 2006, I wrote to my superiors, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone and the Substitute Leonardo Sandri, that the facts attributed to McCarrick by Littleton were of such gravity and vileness as to provoke bewilderment, a sense of disgust, deep sorrow and bitterness in the reader, and that they constituted the crimes of seducing, requesting depraved acts of seminarians and priests, repeatedly and simultaneously with several people, derision of a young seminarian who tried to resist the Archbishop’s seductions in the presence of two other priests, absolution of the accomplices in these depraved acts, sacrilegious celebration of the Eucharist with the same priests after committing such acts.

In my memo, which I delivered on that same December 6, 2006 to my direct superior, the Substitute Leonardo Sandri, I proposed the following considerations and course of action to my superiors:

•Given that it seemed a new scandal of particular gravity, as it regarded a cardinal, was going to be added to the many scandals for the Church in the United States, •and that, since this matter had to do with a cardinal, and according to can. 1405 § 1, No. 2˚, “ipsius Romani Pontifcis dumtaxat ius est iudicandi”; •I proposed that an exemplary measure be taken against the Cardinal that could have a medicinal function, to prevent future abuses against innocent victims and alleviate the very serious scandal for the faithful, who despite everything continued to love and believe in the Church.

I added that it would be salutary if, for once, ecclesiastical authority would intervene before the civil authorities and, if possible, before the scandal had broken out in the press. This could have restored some dignity to a Church so sorely tried and humiliated by so many abominable acts on the part of some pastors. If this were done, the civil authority would no longer have to judge a cardinal, but a pastor with whom the Church had already taken appropriate measures to prevent the cardinal from abusing his authority and continuing to destroy innocent victims.

My memo of December 6, 2006 was kept by my superiors, and was never returned to me

177 with any actual decision by the superiors on this matter.

Subsequently, around April 21-23, 2008, the Statement for Pope Benedict XVI about the pattern of sexual abuse crisis in the United States, by Richard Sipe, was published on the internet, at richardsipe.com. On April 24, it was passed on by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal William Levada, to the Cardinal Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone. It was delivered to me one month later, on May 24, 2008.

The following day, I delivered a new memo to the new Substitute, Fernando Filoni, which included my previous one of December 6, 2006. In it, I summarized Richard Sipe’s document, which ended with this respectful and heartfelt appeal to Pope Benedict XVI:

“I approach Your Holiness with due reverence, but with the same intensity that motivated Peter Damian to lay out before your predecessor, Pope Leo IX, a description of the condition of the clergy during his time. The problems he spoke of are similar and as great now in the United States as they were then in Rome. If Your Holiness requests, I will personally submit to you documentation of that about which I have spoken.”

I ended my memo by repeating to my superiors that I thought it was necessary to intervene as soon as possible by removing the cardinal’s hat from Cardinal McCarrick and that he should be subjected to the sanctions established by the Code of Canon Law, which also provide for reduction to the lay state.

This second memo of mine was also never returned to the Personnel Ofce, and I was greatly dismayed at my superiors for the inconceivable absence of any measure against the Cardinal, and for the continuing lack of any communication with me since my frst memo in December 2006.

But fnally I learned with certainty, through Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, then-Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, that Richard Sipe’s courageous and meritorious Statement had had the desired result.

Pope Benedict had imposed on Cardinal McCarrick sanctions similar to those now imposed on him by Pope Francis: the Cardinal was to leave the seminary where he was living, he was forbidden to celebrate [Mass] in public, to participate in public meetings, to give lectures, to travel, with the obligation of dedicating himself to a life of prayer and penance.

I do not know when Pope Benedict took these measures against McCarrick, whether in 2009 or 2010, because in the meantime I had been transferred to the Governorate of Vatican City State, just as I do not know who was responsible for this incredible delay. I certainly do not believe it was Pope Benedict, who as Cardinal had repeatedly denounced the corruption present in the Church, and in the frst months of his pontifcate had already taken a frm stand against the admission into seminary of young men with deep homosexual tendencies. I believe it was due to the Pope’s frst collaborator at the time, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who notoriously favored promoting homosexuals into positions

178 of responsibility, and was accustomed to managing the information he thought appropriate to convey to the Pope.

In any case, what is certain is that Pope Benedict imposed the above canonical sanctions on McCarrick and that they were communicated to him by the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, Pietro Sambi.

Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, then frst Counsellor of the Nunciature in Washington and Chargé d'Afaires a.i. after the unexpected death of Nuncio Sambi in Baltimore, told me when I arrived in Washington — and he is ready to testify to it— about a stormy conversation, lasting over an hour, that Nuncio Sambi had with Cardinal McCarrick whom he had summoned to the Nunciature. Monsignor Lantheaume told me that “the Nuncio’s voice could be heard all the way out in the corridor.”

Pope Benedict’s same dispositions were then also communicated to me by the new Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Marc Ouellet, in November 2011, in a conversation before my departure for Washington, and were included among the instructions of the same Congregation to the new Nuncio.

In turn, I repeated them to Cardinal McCarrick at my frst meeting with him at the Nunciature. The Cardinal, muttering in a barely comprehensible way, admitted that he had perhaps made the mistake of sleeping in the same bed with some seminarians at his beach house, but he said this as if it had no importance.

The faithful insistently wonder how it was possible for him to be appointed to Washington, and as Cardinal, and they have every right to know who knew, and who covered up his grave misdeeds. It is therefore my duty to reveal what I know about this, beginning with the Roman Curia.

Cardinal Angelo Sodano was Secretary of State until September 2006: all information was communicated to him. In November 2000, Nunzio Montalvo sent him his report, passing on to him the aforementioned letter from Father Boniface Ramsey in which he denounced the serious abuses committed by McCarrick.

It is known that Sodano tried to cover up the Father Maciel scandal to the end. He even removed the Nuncio in Mexico City, Justo Mullor, who refused to be an accomplice in his scheme to cover Maciel, and in his place appointed Sandri, then-Nuncio to Venezuela, who was willing to collaborate in the coverup. Sodano even went so far as to issue a statement to the Vatican press ofce in which a falsehood was afrmed, that is, that Pope Benedict had decided that the Maciel case should be considered closed. Benedict reacted, despite Sodano’s strenuous defense, and Maciel was found guilty and irrevocably condemned.

Was McCarrick’s appointment to Washington and as Cardinal the work of Sodano, when John Paul II was already very ill? We are not given to know. However, it is legitimate to think so, but I do not think he was the only one responsible for this. McCarrick frequently went to Rome and made friends everywhere, at all levels of the Curia. If Sodano had

179 protected Maciel, as seems certain, there is no reason why he wouldn’t have done so for McCarrick, who according to many had the fnancial means to infuence decisions. His nomination to Washington was opposed by then-Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re. At the Nunciature in Washington there is a note, written in his hand, in which Cardinal Re disassociates himself from the appointment and states that McCarrick was 14th on the list for Washington.

Nuncio Sambi’s report, with all the attachments, was sent to Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, as Secretary of State. My two above-mentioned memos of December 6, 2006 and May 25, 2008, were also presumably handed over to him by the Substitute. As already mentioned, the Cardinal had no difculty in insistently presenting for the episcopate candidates known to be active homosexuals — I cite only the well-known case of Vincenzo de Mauro, who was appointed Archbishop-Bishop of Vigevano and later removed because he was undermining his seminarians — and in fltering and manipulating the information he conveyed to Pope Benedict.

Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the current Secretary of State, was also complicit in covering up the misdeeds of McCarrick who had, after the election of Pope Francis, boasted openly of his travels and missions to various continents. In April 2014, the Washington Times had a front page report on McCarrick’s trip to the Central African Republic, and on behalf of the State Department no less. As Nuncio to Washington, I wrote to Cardinal Parolin asking him if the sanctions imposed on McCarrick by Pope Benedict were still valid. Ça va sans dire that my letter never received any reply!

The same can be said for Cardinal William Levada, former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, for Cardinals Marc Ouellet, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, Lorenzo Baldisseri, former Secretary of the same Congregation for Bishops, and Archbishop Ilson de Jesus Montanari, current Secretary of the same Congregation. They were all aware by reason of their ofce of the sanctions imposed by Pope Benedict on McCarrick.

Cardinals Leonardo Sandri, Fernando Filoni and Angelo Becciu, as Substitutes of the Secretariat of State, knew in every detail the situation regarding Cardinal McCarrick. Nor could Cardinals Giovanni Lajolo and Dominique Mamberti have failed to know. As Secretaries for Relations with States, they participated several times a week in collegial meetings with the Secretary of State.

As far as the Roman Curia is concerned, for the moment I will stop here, even if the names of other prelates in the Vatican are well known, even some very close to Pope Francis, such as Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio and Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, who belong to the homosexual current in favor of subverting Catholic doctrine on homosexuality, a current already denounced in 1986 by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then- Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in the Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. Cardinals Edwin Frederick O’Brien and Renato Rafaele Martino also belong to the same current, albeit with a diferent ideology. Others belonging to this current even reside at the Domus Sanctae Marthae.

180 Now to the United States. Obviously, the frst to have been informed of the measures taken by Pope Benedict was McCarrick’s successor in Washington See, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, whose situation is now completely compromised by the recent revelations regarding his behavior as Bishop of Pittsburgh.

It is absolutely unthinkable that Nunzio Sambi, who was an extremely responsible person, loyal, direct and explicit in his way of being (a true son of Romagna) did not speak to him about it. In any case, I myself brought up the subject with Cardinal Wuerl on several occasions, and I certainly didn’t need to go into detail because it was immediately clear to me that he was fully aware of it. I also remember in particular the fact that I had to draw his attention to it, because I realized that in an archdiocesan publication, on the back cover in color, there was an announcement inviting young men who thought they had a vocation to the priesthood to a meeting with Cardinal McCarrick. I immediately phoned Cardinal Wuerl, who expressed his surprise to me, telling me that he knew nothing about that announcement and that he would cancel it. If, as he now continues to state, he knew nothing of the abuses committed by McCarrick and the measures taken by Pope Benedict, how can his answer be explained?

His recent statements that he knew nothing about it, even though at frst he cunningly referred to compensation for the two victims, are absolutely laughable. The Cardinal lies shamelessly and prevails upon his Chancellor, Monsignor Antonicelli, to lie as well. Cardinal Wuerl also clearly lied on another occasion. Following a morally unacceptable event authorized by the academic authorities of Georgetown University, I brought it to the attention of its President, Dr. John DeGioia, sending him two subsequent letters. Before forwarding them to the addressee, so as to handle things properly, I personally gave a copy of them to the Cardinal with an accompanying letter I had written. The Cardinal told me that he knew nothing about it. However, he failed to acknowledge receipt of my two letters, contrary to what he customarily did. I subsequently learned that the event at Georgetown had taken place for seven years. But the Cardinal knew nothing about it! Cardinal Wuerl, well aware of the continuous abuses committed by Cardinal McCarrick and the sanctions imposed on him by Pope Benedict, transgressing the Pope’s order, also allowed him to reside at a seminary in Washington D.C. In doing so, he put other seminarians at risk.

Bishop Paul Bootkoski, emeritus of Metuchen, and Archbishop John Myers, emeritus of Newark, covered up the abuses committed by McCarrick in their respective dioceses and compensated two of his victims. They cannot deny it and they must be interrogated in order to reveal every circumstance and all responsibility regarding this matter.

Cardinal Kevin Farrell, who was recently interviewed by the media, also said that he didn’t have the slightest idea about the abuses committed by McCarrick. Given his tenure in Washington, Dallas and now Rome, I think no one can honestly believe him. I don’t know if he was ever asked if he knew about Maciel’s crimes. If he were to deny this, would anybody believe him given that he occupied positions of responsibility as a member of the Legionaries of Christ?

Regarding Cardinal Sean O’Malley, I would simply say that his latest statements on the McCarrick case are disconcerting, and have totally obscured his transparency and

181 credibility. * * *

My conscience requires me also to reveal facts that I have experienced personally, concerning Pope Francis, that have a dramatic signifcance, which as Bishop, sharing the collegial responsibility of all the bishops for the universal Church, do not allow me to remain silent, and that I state here, ready to reafrm them under oath by calling on God as my witness.

In the last months of his pontifcate, Pope Benedict XVI had convened a meeting of all the apostolic nuncios in Rome, as Paul VI and St. John Paul II had done on several occasions. The date set for the audience with the Pope was Friday, June 21, 2013. Pope Francis kept this commitment made by his predecessor. Of course I also came to Rome from Washington. It was my frst meeting with the new Pope elected only three months prior, after the resignation of Pope Benedict.

On the morning of Thursday, June 20, 2013, I went to the Domus Sanctae Marthae, to join my colleagues who were staying there. As soon as I entered the hall I met Cardinal McCarrick, who wore the redtrimmed cassock. I greeted him respectfully as I had always done. He immediately said to me, in a tone somewhere between ambiguous and triumphant:

“The Pope received me yesterday, tomorrow I am going to China.”

At the time I knew nothing of his long friendship with Cardinal Bergoglio and of the important part he had played in his recent election, as McCarrick himself would later reveal in a lecture at Villanova University and in an interview with the National Catholic Reporter. Nor had I ever thought of the fact that he had participated in the preliminary meetings of the recent conclave, and of the role he had been able to have as a cardinal elector in the 2005 conclave. Therefore I did not immediately grasp the meaning of the encrypted message that McCarrick had communicated to me, but that would become clear to me in the days immediately following.

The next day the audience with Pope Francis took place. After his address, which was partly read and partly delivered of the cuf, the Pope wished to greet all the nuncios one by one. In single fle, I remember that I was among the last. When it was my turn, I just had time to say to him, “I am the Nuncio to the United States.” He immediately assailed me with a tone of reproach, using these words: “The Bishops in the United States must not be ideologized! They must be shepherds!” Of course I was not in a position to ask for explanations about the meaning of his words and the aggressive way in which he had upbraided me. I had in my hand a book in Portuguese that Cardinal O’Malley had sent me for the Pope a few days earlier, telling me “so he could go over his Portuguese before going to Rio for World Youth Day.” I handed it to him immediately, and so freed myself from that extremely disconcerting

182 and embarrassing situation. At the end of the audience the Pope announced:

“Those of you who are still in Rome next Sunday are invited to concelebrate with me at the Domus Sanctae Marthae.”

I naturally thought of staying on to clarify as soon as possible what the Pope intended to tell me.

On Sunday June 23, before the concelebration with the Pope, I asked Monsignor Ricca, who as the person in charge of the house helped us put on the vestments, if he could ask the Pope if he could receive me sometime in the following week. How could I have returned to Washington without having clarifed what the Pope wanted of me? At the end of Mass, while the Pope was greeting the few lay people present, Monsignor Fabian Pedacchio, his Argentine secretary, came to me and said:

“The Pope told me to ask if you are free now!”

Naturally, I replied that I was at the Pope’s disposal and that I thanked him for receiving me mmediately. The Pope took me to the frst foor in his apartment and said:

“We have 40 minutes before the Angelus.”

I began the conversation, asking the Pope what he intended to say to me with the words he had addressed to me when I greeted him the previous Friday. And the Pope, in a very diferent, friendly, almost afectionate tone, said to me:

“Yes, the Bishops in the United States must not be ideologized, they must not be right-wing like the Archbishop of Philadelphia, (the Pope did not give me the name of the Archbishop) they must be shepherds; and they must not be left- wing — and he added, raising both arms — and when I say left-wing I mean homosexual.”

Of course, the logic of the correlation between being left-wing and being homosexual escaped me, but I added nothing else.

Immediately after, the Pope asked me in a deceitful way: “b” I answered him with complete frankness and, if you want, with great naiveté:

“Holy Father, I don’t know if you know Cardinal McCarrick, but if you ask the Congregation for Bishops there is a dossier this thick about him. He corrupted generations of seminarians and priests and Pope Benedict ordered him to withdraw to a life of prayer and penance.”

The Pope did not make the slightest comment about those very grave words of mine and did not show any expression of surprise on his face, as if he had already known the matter for some time, and he immediately changed the subject.

183 But then, what was the Pope’s purpose in asking me that question:

“What is Cardinal McCarrick like?”

He clearly wanted to fnd out if I was an ally of McCarrick or not.

Back in Washington everything became very clear to me, thanks also to a new event that occurred only a few days after my meeting with Pope Francis. When the new Bishop Mark Seitz took possession of the Diocese of El Paso on July 9, 2013, I sent the frst Counsellor, Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, while I went to Dallas that same day for an international meeting on Bioethics. When he got back, Monsignor Lantheaume told me that in El Paso he had met Cardinal McCarrick who, taking him aside, told him almost the same words that the Pope had said to me in Rome:

“the Bishops in the United States must not be ideologized, they must not be right-wing, they must be shepherds… .”

I was astounded! It was therefore clear that the words of reproach that Pope Francis had addressed to me on June 21, 2013 had been put into his mouth the day before by Cardinal McCarrick. Also the Pope’s mention

“not like the Archbishop of Philadelphia” could be traced to McCarrick, because there had been a strong disagreement between the two of them about the admission to Communion of pro-abortion politicians. In his communication to the bishops, McCarrick had manipulated a letter of then-Cardinal Ratzinger who prohibited giving them Communion. Indeed, I also knew how certain Cardinals such as Mahony, Levada and Wuerl, were closely linked to McCarrick; they had opposed the most recent appointments made by Pope Benedict, for important posts such as Philadelphia, Baltimore, Denver and San Francisco.

Not happy with the trap he had set for me on June 23, 2013, when he asked me about McCarrick, only a few months later, in the audience he granted me on October 10, 2013, Pope Francis set a second one for me, this time concerning a second of his protégés, Cardinal Donald Wuerl. He asked me:

“What is Cardinal Wuerl like, is he good or bad?”

I replied,

“Holy Father, I will not tell you if he is good or bad, but I will tell you two facts.”

They are the ones I have already mentioned above, which concern Wuerl’s pastoral carelessness regarding the aberrant deviations at Georgetown University and the invitation by the Archdiocese of Washington to young aspirants to the priesthood to a meeting with McCarrick! Once again the Pope did not show any reaction.

It was also clear that, from the time of Pope Francis’s election, McCarrick, now free from

184 all constraints, had felt free to travel continuously, to give lectures and interviews. In a team efort with Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga, he had become the kingmaker for appointments in the Curia and the United States, and the most listened to advisor in the Vatican for relations with the Obama administration. This is how one explains that, as members of the Congregation for Bishops, the Pope replaced Cardinal Burke with Wuerl and immediately appointed Cupich right after he was made a cardinal. With these appointments the Nunciature in Washington was now out of the picture in the appointment of bishops. In addition, he appointed the Brazilian Ilson de Jesus Montanari — the great friend of his private Argentine secretary Fabian Pedacchio — as Secretary of the same Congregation for Bishops and Secretary of the College of Cardinals, promoting him in one single leap from a simple ofcial of that department to Archbishop Secretary. Something unprecedented for such an important position! The appointments of Blase Cupich to Chicago and Joseph W. Tobin to Newark were orchestrated by McCarrick, Maradiaga and Wuerl, united by a wicked pact of abuses by the frst, and at least of coverup of abuses by the other two. Their names were not among those presented by the Nunciature for Chicago and Newark.

Regarding Cupich, one cannot fail to note his ostentatious arrogance, and the insolence with which he denies the evidence that is now obvious to all: that 80% of the abuses found were committed against young adults by homosexuals who were in a relationship of authority over their victims.

During the speech he gave when he took possession of the Chicago See, at which I was present as a representative of the Pope, Cupich quipped that one certainly should not expect the new Archbishop to walk on water. Perhaps it would be enough for him to be able to remain with his feet on the ground and not try to turn reality upside-down, blinded by his pro-gay ideology, as he stated in a recent interview with America Magazine.

Extolling his particular expertise in the matter, having been President of the Committee on Protection of Children and Young People of the USCCB, he asserted that the main problem in the crisis of sexual abuse by clergy is not homosexuality, and that afrming this is only a way of diverting attention from the real problem which is clericalism. In support of this thesis, Cupich “oddly” made reference to the results of research carried out at the height of the sexual abuse of minors crisis in the early 2000s, while he “candidly” ignored that the results of that investigation were totally denied by the subsequent Independent Reports by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in 2004 and 2011, which concluded that, in cases of sexual abuse, 81% of the victims were male. In fact, Father Hans Zollner, S.J., Vice-Rector of the Pontifcal Gregorian University, President of the Centre for Child Protection, and Member of the Pontifcal Commission for the Protection of Minors, recently told the newspaper La Stampa that “in most cases it is a question of homosexual abuse.”

The appointment of McElroy in San Diego was also orchestrated from above, with an encrypted peremptory order to me as Nuncio, by Cardinal Parolin: “Reserve the See of San Diego for McElroy.” McElroy was also well aware of McCarrick’s abuses, as can be seen from a letter sent to him by Richard Sipe on July 28, 2016.

185 These characters are closely associated with individuals belonging in particular to the deviated wing of the Society of Jesus, unfortunately today a majority, which had already been a cause of serious concern to Paul VI and subsequent pontifs. We need only consider Father Robert Drinan, S.J., who was elected four times to the House of Representatives, and was a staunch supporter of abortion; or Father Vincent O’Keefe, S.J., one of the principal promoters of The Land O’Lakes Statement of 1967, which seriously compromised the Catholic identity of universities and colleges in the United States. It should be noted that McCarrick, then President of the Catholic University of Puerto Rico, also participated in that inauspicious undertaking which was so harmful to the formation of the consciences of American youth, closely associated as it was with the deviated wing of the Jesuits.

Father James Martin, S.J., acclaimed by the people mentioned above, in particular Cupich, Tobin, Farrell and McElroy, appointed Consultor of the Secretariat for Communications, well-known activist who promotes the LGBT agenda, chosen to corrupt the young people who will soon gather in Dublin for the World Meeting of Families, is nothing but a sad recent example of that deviated wing of the Society of Jesus.

Pope Francis has repeatedly asked for total transparency in the Church and for bishops and faithful to act with parrhesia. The faithful throughout the world also demand this of him in an exemplary manner. He must honestly state when he frst learned about the crimes committed by McCarrick, who abused his authority with seminarians and priests.

In any case, the Pope learned about it from me on June 23, 2013 and continued to cover for him. He did not take into account the sanctions that Pope Benedict had imposed on him and made him his trusted counselor along with Maradiaga.

The latter [Maradiaga] is so confdent of the Pope’s protection that he can dismiss as “gossip” the heartfelt appeals of dozens of his seminarians, who found the courage to write to him after one of them tried to commit suicide over homosexual abuse in the seminary.

By now the faithful have well understood Maradiaga’s strategy: insult the victims to save himself, lie to the bitter end to cover up a chasm of abuses of power, of mismanagement in the administration of Church property, and of fnancial disasters even against close friends, as in the case of the Ambassador of Honduras Alejandro Valladares, former Dean of the Diplomatic Corps to the Holy See.

In the case of the former Auxiliary Bishop Juan José Pineda, after the article published in the [Italian] weekly L’Espresso last February, Maradiaga stated in the newspaper Avvenire:

“It was my auxiliary bishop Pineda who asked for the visitation, so as to ‘clear’ his name after being subjected to much slander.”

186 Now, regarding Pineda the only thing that has been made public is that his resignation has simply been accepted, thus making any possible responsibility of his and Maradiaga vanish into nowhere.

In the name of the transparency so hailed by the Pope, the report that the Visitator, Argentine bishop Alcides Casaretto, delivered more than a year ago only and directly to the Pope, must be made public.

Finally, the recent appointment as Substitute of Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra is also connected with Honduras, that is, with Maradiaga. From 2003 to 2007 Peña Parra worked as Counsellor at the Tegucigalpa Nunciature. As Delegate for Pontifcal Representations I received worrisome information about him.

In Honduras, a scandal as huge as the one in Chile is about to be repeated. The Pope defends his man, Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga, to the bitter end, as he had done in Chile with Bishop Juan de la Cruz Barros, whom he himself had appointed Bishop of Osorno against the advice of the Chilean Bishops. First he insulted the abuse victims. Then, only when he was forced by the media, and a revolt by the Chilean victims and faithful, did he recognize his error and apologize, while stating that he had been misinformed, causing a disastrous situation for the Church in Chile, but continuing to protect the two Chilean Cardinals Errazuriz and Ezzati.

Even in the tragic afair of McCarrick, Pope Francis’s behavior was no diferent. He knew from at least June 23, 2013 that McCarrick was a serial predator. Although he knew that he was a corrupt man, he covered for him to the bitter end; indeed, he made McCarrick’s advice his own, which was certainly not inspired by sound intentions and for love of the Church. It was only when he was forced by the report of the abuse of a minor, again on the basis of media attention, that he took action [regarding McCarrick] to save his image in the media.

Now in the United States a chorus of voices is rising especially from the lay faithful, and has recently been joined by several bishops and priests, asking that all those who, by their silence, covered up McCarrick’s criminal behavior, or who used him to advance their career or promote their intentions, ambitions and power in the Church, should resign.

But this will not be enough to heal the situation of extremely grave immoral behavior by the clergy: bishops and priests. A time of conversion and penance must be proclaimed. The virtue of chastity must be recovered in the clergy and in seminaries. Corruption in the misuse of the Church’s resources and of the oferings of the faithful must be fought against. The seriousness of homosexual behavior must be denounced. The homosexual networks present in the Church must be eradicated, as Janet Smith, Professor of Moral Theology at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, recently wrote.

“The problem of clergy abuse,” she wrote, “cannot be resolved simply by the resignation of some bishops, and even less so by bureaucratic directives. The deeper problem lies in homosexual networks within the clergy which must be

187 eradicated.”

These homosexual networks, which are now widespread in many dioceses, seminaries, religious orders, etc., act under the concealment of secrecy and lies with the power of octopus tentacles, and strangle innocent victims and priestly vocations, and are strangling the entire Church.

I implore everyone, especially Bishops, to speak up in order to defeat this conspiracy of silence that is so widespread, and to report the cases of abuse they know about to the media and civil authorities.

Let us heed the most powerful message that St. John Paul II left us as an inheritance:

Do not be afraid! Do not be afraid!

In his 2008 homily on the Feast of the Epiphany, Pope Benedict reminded us that the Father’s plan of salvation had been fully revealed and realized in the mystery of Christ’s death and resurrection, but it needs to be welcomed in human history, which is always a history of fdelity on God’s part and unfortunately also of infdelity on the part of us men. The Church, the depositary of the blessing of the New Covenant, signed in the blood of the Lamb, is holy but made up of sinners, as Saint Ambrose wrote: the Church is “immaculata ex maculatis,” she is holy and spotless even though, in her earthly journey, she is made up of men stained with sin.

I want to recall this indefectible truth of the Church’s holiness to the many people who have been so deeply scandalized by the abominable and sacrilegious behavior of the former Archbishop of Washington, Theodore McCarrick; by the grave, disconcerting and sinful conduct of Pope Francis and by the conspiracy of silence of so many pastors, and who are tempted to abandon the Church, disfgured by so many ignominies. At the Angelus on Sunday, August 12, 2018 Pope Francis said these words:

“Everyone is guilty for the good he could have done and did not do ... If we do not oppose evil, we tacitly feed it. We need to intervene where evil is spreading; for evil spreads where daring Christians who oppose evil with good are lacking.”

If this is rightly to be considered a serious moral responsibility for every believer, how much graver is it for the Church’s supreme pastor, who in the case of McCarrick not only did not oppose evil but associated himself in doing evil with someone he knew to be deeply corrupt. He followed the advice of someone he knew well to be a pervert, thus multiplying exponentially with his supreme authority the evil done by McCarrick. And how many other evil pastors is Francis still continuing to prop up in their active destruction of the Church!

Francis is abdicating the mandate which Christ gave to Peter to confrm the brethren. Indeed, by his action he has divided them, led them into error, and encouraged the wolves to continue to tear apart the sheep of Christ’s fock.

188 In this extremely dramatic moment for the universal Church, he must acknowledge his mistakes and, in keeping with the proclaimed principle of zero tolerance, Pope Francis must be the frst to set a good example for cardinals and bishops who covered up McCarrick’s abuses and resign along with all of them.

Even in dismay and sadness over the enormity of what is happening, let us not lose hope! We well know that the great majority of our pastors live their priestly vocation with fdelity and dedication.

It is in moments of great trial that the Lord’s grace is revealed in abundance and makes His limitless mercy available to all; but it is granted only to those who are truly repentant and sincerely propose to amend their lives. This is a favorable time for the Church to confess her sins, to convert, and to do penance.

Let us all pray for the Church and for the Pope, let us remember how many times he has asked us to pray for him!

Let us all renew faith in the Church our Mother: “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church!”

Christ will never abandon His Church! He generated her in His Blood and continually revives her with His Spirit! Mary, Mother of the Church, pray for us! Mary, Virgin and Queen, Mother of the King of glory, pray for us! + Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

About Archbishop Viganò Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò was the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States from 2011 to 2016. He also previously served as Secretary-General of the Governorate of Vatican City State from 2009 to 2011. He is notable for his role in bringing to light scandals and corruption within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, especially in revealing the wide- spread cover-up of the abuses of Theodore McCarrick.

********************************

189 PRESS RELEASE 14 MAY 2020

THE CALL FOR THE CHURCH AND THE WORLD IN JUST A FEW DAYS, IT HAS ALMOST 40,000 MEMBERS. www.veritasliberabitvos.info

On 8 May last, three Cardinals and nine Bishops, together with doctors, journalists, lawyers, intellectuals and professionals from all over the world launched an Appeal to raise awareness among public opinion, rulers, the scientific community and the media about the serious dangers to individual freedoms determined in conjunction with the spread of Covid-19. In some countries these dangers have been more widely perceived, in others less so; but everywhere it is necessary to draw the attention of the Catholic faithful and men of good will to what is happening at such a difficult time: to consider only the health aspects of the epidemic, without seeing the social, economic, political and religious implications, can lead the world towards a future in which the Authority of States and the Church are weakened or absorbed by self-referential powers and which have at least unclear goals. The project of a New World Order in which nations and citizens lose all their identities and are controlled by an elite may have seemed an absurd idea until a few years ago, while today it is affirmed and even propagated as a good for society and individuals. Such a plan, promoted by supranational organizations, must be unmasked, known and denounced: this should be the purpose of information, so that each of us is aware of what is happening and can express ourselves clearly as a person, as a believer and as a member of the community.

The purpose of the Appeal is precisely this: to break the media silence that weighs on our present, especially with regard to individual freedoms and personal rights, threatened by forms of censorship and control; to demand equal dignity of discussion in the scientific community, without letting ourselves be guided by economic or ideological interests; to remind rulers of their grave responsibilities for the common good. The Appeal has undoubtedly succeeded in provoking some debate. In Germany, numerous exponents of the Episcopate have confined themselves to generally dismissing its content as “conspiracy theories”, without disproving anything and even confirming their uncritical alignment with the dominant thought. Responding to an interview in Die Tagespost, Card. Gerhard Müller (among the signatories) courageously observed that today one is induced to “call all those who think differently as conspiracy theorists”. He also said: “Those who make no distinction between opportunities and dangers associated with globalization are denying reality. Pope Francis is also opposed to the fact that states and international organizations impose abortion on poor people in a neo-colonialist way by revoking development aid if they refuse it. In Peru, during the Fujimori period, I myself spoke with women and men who had been unwittingly sterilized and who had been deceived with money and false promises about health and happiness in life. And this is “conspiracy theory”?” Just as it cannot be accused of conspiracy “to assume to vaccinate seven billion people, even if the drug has not yet been properly tested, limiting the fundamental rights for those who do not accept the vaccine. No one can be forced to believe that a few billionaire philanthropists have the best programs to improve the world, just because they have managed to accumulate enormous private wealth” (here).

190 On similar positions is also Archbishop Athanasius Schneider: “It is surprising how representatives of the ecclesiastical and political establishment and the media have discredited in unison, according to mainstream thinking, the concern of the appeal with the “knock-out argument” of the “conspiracy theory”, so as to truncate any further discussion in the bud. I remember a similar form of reaction and language at the time of the Soviet dictatorship, when dissidents and critics of the dominant ideology and politics were accused of complicity with the “conspiracy theory” of the capitalist West” (here). It should be pointed out that the Appeal – beyond the obvious criticism from those who want to misinterpret its meaning only to avoid having to face the numerous inconsistencies of what is happening before our eyes – has obtained the support of important personalities of the laity and eminent exponents of the world of science and information. Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. has also expressed his support. In less than a week the Appeal has collected almost 40,000 signatures and is now spreading to Eastern Europe. The perception of a sort of rift – which the Appeal has the merit of having made visible – between the faithful and the leaders of the Hierarchy emerges without doubt: this is also confirmed by the clearly globalist approach of the Day of Prayer “Pray for Humanity” called by the High Committee for the Human Fraternity of the United Arab Emirates to invoke the end of the pandemic, to which the Holy See was immediately regrettably united. This vision, recently ratified with the Abu Dhabi Declaration, is clearly inspired by the relativist ideology proper to Masonic thought. As such, it has nothing Catholic about it and it is disturbing, to say the least, that the leaders of the Church lend themselves to acting as the “spiritual arm” of the New World Order, which is ontologically anti-Christian. + Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop, Apostolic Nuncio

191